Without the results, we can't know how far off the original typing was from the second one, but it's actually possible that an "ESTJ" could only be one coin off from an "ENFP." TeNe vs NeTe.
Wow, saying "the end of OPS" feels like a bold statement, in my opinion. Surely some things need to continue to be corrected and refined in the OPS system, but some of the discoveries and observations they've made along the years felt ground braking and innovating. Deeply changing our understanding of type. Like the Observers vs Deciders and the obsession with Things vs People. This observation does make a lot of sense from a cognitive perspective and can help with the identification of a person's type. The fact that their system is still under development and they are transparent about their progress, their work and their mistakes, can show a potential for continual development. Ultimately, in the field of typology (as in many other fields) I feel no single system can trump, and that only by bringing together the knowledge offered by multiple systems, can typology - as a unified field - mature and become a rounded and sharp tool for self knowledge. And this means: seeing the gems in all these different systems, and honouring those systems for the knowledge they managed to bring to this unified field.
@@PowerRedBullTypology Hey PowerRedBull, cool to see you here. I've seen your comments on other type related videos, and I remember liking the sharpness and inquisitorial nature of some of them. Related to the question you posed.. not sure I actually understood? Were you asking how do I see the connection between Things/People - Observers/Deciders?
@@PowerRedBullTypology And a short answer: I've met beings with Te first that 80% of what they would mostly talk and think about is people. So it doesn't seem like Thinking would be more oriented towards Things, and Feeling towards People. It actually seems like.. all Deciders (Thinkers and Feelers) are somewhat obsessed with (or scared of) people.
@@DenisaNastase First of all, thanks for your kind words about my comments! Secondly, the question I tried to ask was why you think the association between decider/observer and people/things makes so much sense. For example when compared to the 'oldschool view' that feeling functions are orientated towards people/values and thinking functions more related to things in my opinion seems more logical? Let's say if we take Ti as a function, which is a detached analysis function that someone does internally. According to OPS this is a 'people' function, implying it concerns itself with people, even though in videos about Ti by OPS it's more implied as being about things (I think in an example with building a 10 layer deep complex tool,?). This tool thing however seems clearly a _thing_ and not related to people at all. I am curious why you prefer the OPS view on this, despite it seems counter intuitive in the case of Ti for example? In the 'oldschool' view Ti would be more about things, simply because it's a thinking function.
I think a difference with OPS and other typology systems, is OPS is still developing in real-time whereas other systems are already established I.e. MBTI. Recognition of mistypying does not correlate to failure of a system But work needs to be added. Its not strange for science to follow a said model or idea and have newer information that alters perception and understanding. This happened with the model of an atom, even the theory of evolution as well as planets and their respective orbits(to list a few examples).
This was the only case where the same person was typed and them not noticing it's the same person. If anything, it implies lots of people would be typed differently if only Dave would not recognize it's the same person. Since he's Te, he has problably made sure it's not possible to happen again. Did they not remove the phonecall typing option?
I think ops is great. The reason people bail is likely either internal conflicts within the community or their political beliefs and opinions leaking out in their videos, especially by Shan. That grates me, however the system in itself is stellar and gets my stamp of approval and so I continue watching. The info is good. I don't think its true they market ops as you say, I find your description of it in the first minute disingenuous - they've always said it's about having different people coming to the same conclusion about someones type. Dave and Shan and recruiters typing people the same way despite sitting in different rooms. Becoming solid on definitions over time. They want a process that is repeatable and consistent. And they never offered your true type, just that they'd type people to the best of their ability if you sent them a video. They've always been upfront about how one video is not enough to type with great certainty.
@@billyb4790 That was a hard watch. I don't know whether it was staged or not - I will presume NOT, but I disliked that video the most. And all the comments did the typical: you so brave, this is horrible etc. etc.
They made some good videos explaining the functions back in the day but all of the "blast" and the "feminine" "masculine" stuff threw their good information into question. They also had this extreme arrogance about typology which seemed odd for such a subjective field that it had to be an affectation.
Yes!!! 👏👏👏 the arrogance they had was ridiculous. Also, I can’t believe for one second that Dave in an INTJ. When would Ni add more possibilities? Ni would simplify. He did the opposite.
@@ewe6096 I think multiplication can also be "blamed" on Te, as it does not simplify like Ti, just like all extroverted functions in some way or another are about expansion and the introversion about reduction
@@ewe6096 In one of their videos, Dave mentioned when they started to discover some of the different aspects of personality type, it forced them to consider more possibilities. One of the major shortcomings of many type systems is that there are too few categories... 16 types just isn't enough to account for the differences that some people have within a particular type... Of course Ni wants to narrow things down, but not to the extent that it goes against the observations being made and begins to degrade the accuracy of the system. With regard to the arrogance that people seem to perceive, it's always been part of their message that, we all suck at our personality type and one type isn't better than another. It does make sense that some people might perceive them to be arrogant, but I think that might be a misinterpretation of their style and intentions...
I never felt like Dave & Shan were knowingly or deliberately misleading their audience in any way - I had a gut feeling that they were earnest and serious about their ideas and what they were selling, based on what they found useful in their own lives. It's just that they got ahead of themselves with a very, very ambitious project, and with their typing service, they wound up having to mass-produce something that needs to be deeply personal. Nice work, and excellent analysis of the pressures that the OPS community places on individual members.
They seemed to be respected in r/mbti but I even found Frank James' pop psych version more useful, OP calling energies "masculine" or "feminine", or calling inferior function the "demon" was confusing and really turned me off. I happen to like Cognitive Personality Theory more, because he doesn't view things as absolutes and disregards stereotypes, which is so helpful for someone who has typed as ENTP, INTP, ENFP, INFP, and INTJ and has a Ne>Ni>Ti>Fi>Si=Te>Fe>Se function strength which doesn't really fit one specific type well.
Disclaimer: I have no idea what they are talking about though I have paid for their tools and went through the first 10 of 40-something pages of videos on their website. 1. Scientists, like Shan and Dave, also say they are not sure of what is true and false. This claim does not invalidate their work. Therefore the language in this video projects subjective feelings by saying that the couple makes "aggressive" "assertions". They are observations for the sake of a scientofoc system. Which leads to my next point: 2. The fine print on the website should not say this is " Not an objective system", as you stated in this video. That would directly nullify the title of their system. What is valid for them to say, if anything, is that the system itself is not a scientific one, but they utilize the Scientific Method to derive emperical, measurable results. 3. They themselves have also stated that it is nearly impossible to type someone's whole life in 20 minutes or in 1 video. This may beget the argument that they are hypocritical in typing anyone in the first place, however it is the fact that by typing someone in 20min to an hour or however long it takes in a session, you will definitely fit into a one of 512 categories. The categories themselves are not what is 100% true, just like the system of science itself no one can claim to be 100% true because at some point someone subjectively came up with the concept of science. What os 100% true though, is that you can be tracked and measured by the 512 categories of the system. If scientists and society can use Science to observe that the planets revolve around Earth and hold this notion for centuries, I think Shan and Dave can use OBS and type people wrong.
This video is a good example of critical thinking. FYI: one channel I recommend for fans of personality typing is TypeVolution. She’s new and some of the theories are strange but that’s the appeal. There’s actually many people who do it better than Objective Personality, now and probably will be in the future too. If you want to theorize, just admit it.
I recommend Cognitive Personality Theory; I was typed by them & had 3 1 hour video calls & email correspondence. The theory is being supported by research as well
They never claim to know your type 100%, in fact they make a point to claim the opposite. The fact that you think this shows you know very little about the matter.
I started to become quite skeptical of OP. The very nature also takes away what a lot of people find interesting about typology--finding yourself. They took away the self-reflection aspect and said "no, you are wrong about your type", and it felt like they would purposely type people differently than what people type themselves.
You miss the fact how it's really up to your type and self biasses how you would mistype. How intps would see themselves entj just because intps seek the respect and actually achievements. Esfps as infjs because they always want the best of everything. And especially how you saw your opposite of energy of yourself.
@@ferenccsenkey3343 I'm not missing this fact at all. It's obvious this happens. OP overemphasizes this mistyping and uses it to strip away control of typing from individuals so they can dictate it as professionals through their very specific and convoluted method.
@@WestwoodC21 Are you real now? Who told you they have to do it? You both saying you would need to depend on them and also it's either one method or the other. Like just take the system and go with it, get a friend to figure it out. Most of the system what is published on youtube is already finely written together as resources, such as their methods.
Also I am sorry, I know this is an opinionpiece, but I don't see value in self reflection what is not seated in something concrete? What does self reflection means if you don't have a concrete and full picture of yourself? You get your type done, you realize you are an ashole this way and that way, then spend your time in this planet being less of an asshole. Like me being here doing the Ti talk. While I could also just send you an affirming like and let you go on your way.
Here's the thing, I don't know about this girl that have been mistyped but what I do know is: - They didn't claim that they can get your type a 100% and if you had questions about your type they will answer and work out the problem WITH YOU NOT FOR YOU, meaning you have to point out the misunderstandings and they will clear everything up and if they mess up they will work it out - You're saying that this girl didn't agree with being an ESTJ means that she isn't an ESTJ ,so why there are expert like you and Objective personality, why don't anyone just type themleves then - You're saying that they are not gaining any new subscribers, yet they beat the hell out of your 40 some thousand subscribers Last thing, I heard a quote from Gary Vee and it goes like this "There's two ways to build the biggest building in town, you can either bash and tear other people's buildings OR you just build the biggest building in town" by working hard, getting better and improve overtime. And by the way, I'm not saying Objective personality is right and you are wrong ,no one is forcing anyone to go to objective personality, you make up your own mind, if it's not for you then okay no problem.
Maybe it's not the end, but a new beginning. We are not perfect, we are not robots. Typologists, psychologists, doctors... everyone make mistakes. I think we need the both views to be certain : the subjective and the objective. For MBTI, I thought I understood that at the end only the subject, the person can validate his own type. He can be agree or not with the results. I like their system, it's useful and fun. Very accurate for me. I am very introspective, I think it help a lot. I typed myself 2 years ago by learning this system and with the test which where on your website at this moment (I got my right type the first time) Later I was happy a psychologist told me my learning style was Kinesthetic dominant, because it validated the modalities of my OPS type. It also validated my MBTI type and my subtype in another system.
The only two good points here that are true, os that the community sucks when handling people that question their type, and that their definitions could be improved. And this is in reference to what relates to objective personality specifically.
Tbh though, there are so many people who have put OP on some kind typology pedestal and have given them too much authority. Like you say Erik, there is a margin of error due to factors mentioned. People do have to take a certain amount of responsibility for looking to OP as a prime typology authority which you can clearly see in their previous online publicity and ratings
That was exactly my theory. Why would they want you to spend months on their classes first to learn their OPS theory and only THEN you get the access to be officially typed. Why so? So that they can convince you better, so you'd be more prone to accepting their results (and they can make more money in the proccess). The system must be perfect, no errors, no mistakes, or else it is not objective, right? There is no such thing as objective. They knew this, so they tried very hard to avoid this problem
Oh man I clicked on this thinking it said "The end of Objective Reality" but it turns out I was just as interested in this! I watched OP for a long time but realized I was getting... almost cult indoctrinated to their system. Which, if anything, shows how well it was designed, but I had to unsub b/c it was basically too addicting to feel like I was honing a skill but was a little too scary realizing I was basically just copying 2 random people on the internet doing it. The utility of it was deeply in question and it changed my relationship with MBTI ever since.
A cult? Like mbti? Like eneagram? Sounds like there are people who just prefer this system over an other. Calling something a cult reveals more witch hunters than cultists in my opinion.
Honestly i have a hard time considering objective personality system as the same despite using the same names for types as mbti or jungian typology The problem is that the definitions of the functions is misleading at it's core Consider that intuition is considered to be imagination in their system for instance, but those are two different mental abilities
I still like objective personality, Mainly their animal stuff is very true, and now the social types they came up with is also very true and observable , And there modalities about visual and all is also true, it explains a lot of things Right now it's difficult to type 512 or 2000 types but as we get more advancement in AI it will get much better with time i guess And most of the block is people don't know themselves enough to say correct things
@@ewe6096 it seems to be for me specially their animal section Like i am constantly blasting and all And they also have a concept if you have masculine intuition you have strong visual and bad with dates and all and vise versa It all seems to be true for me
@@p_k_2000 the question was if everything observable was true. The converse of that question would be is there ever a time that something observable is not true. Also, in order for something to be an objective it must be repeatable, not just with you but across a large sample.
@@ewe6096 yeah sometimes observable things are not true , humans are complex creature All i care about is i benifited from it , and to me it still appears to be objective but idk not going to fight for it or anything
@@quagmire434ou’re just biased. So you’re telling me the greater MBTI community is scientific in any way? Please, there’s wrong interpretations all over the place. OP’s definitions are at least stable to the point where we can debate its validity. And their system has been observable in my experience as well. They mistyped one person, like they actually care about their community members, it’s a business. The people who actually pay to get typed have it coming; they obviously find typing celebrities far more interesting. That’s there Fi deep at work.
I don’t have a problem with OP and their system but they seem to not get that cognitive functions are so deep, and confusing that it drives people away from the subject. Also thinking of functions first is the best way to quickly mistype. I used them to confirm only. They aren’t the only ones adding complexity to MBTI that’s so complex there are no accurate tests for it.
I understand what you mean about making it less “fun” when it comes to self-discovery. A lot of their type examples are very extreme and I couldn’t relate to almost any of them at all. However, I will say the decider vs observer fears made it much easier for me to type. Same with the “jumper” concept, which is basically what looping is. I see a lot of their methods tie into what I previously learned about typology, so it was, personally, very helpful for me. It’s kinda funny how long it took me to find out I was an INFP, even though it should’ve been obvious. Self-discovery really is a journey. The test on your website also confirmed I was an INFP, even the 16 Personalities test gave me INFP the first time I ever took it. Interesting how it all worked out that way.
It's possible they could mistype people while still having an accurate theory. Some people might not give accurate information about themselves when taking a test or being typed by a professional, and they're not trying to intentionally give wrong information. I hate taking personality tests, because of blind Ni I almost never know the "correct" answer to the questions, but I was eventually able to type myself and some other people I know once I understood it. With the tests there's "no right answer", which is dumb, of course there should be a right answer that fits more than the others.
I frankly wonder what took OPS so long to unravel. It was just an endless coin generation without any integration of its theory into something remotely coherent.
Please share what you mean by “unravel” lol. Sidenote, Erik Thor talking about ops not growing fast like they did at first is funny considering how similar things could be said about Erik Thor’s channel which has less views on recent videos then it did in the past. And his sub count also has less movement then it did in the past. You know what they say about glass houses…. And if we are being honest OPS still does great numbers in terms of views and 51k subs is no joke when it comes to niche typology stuff. Try reaching 51k while moving away from standard Mbti. And try doing it without going full CSJ dark magician clown demon warlock showcon mode. And pretty much everyone except Frank James starts to slow down in terms of sub acquisition. CSJ been sitting at 61k for a while, OPS 51k, Erik Thor 41k you get the idea. Frank James stuff however, cheap popcorn comedy with no theoretical exploration of typology is the kind of stuff that will go full Hollywood over 1 million subs and growing lol
I was interested to hear your opinion, until I Se checked and saw the thumbnail was faked in order to get attention. That move automatically makes everything you say from here on, invalid to me as you have shown that anything you produce cannot be trusted.
@@pocketfulofposey the entire video is truthful and in the emails they do apologize. i could have used an email template instead of a tweet i guess but the gist is the same.
It did surprise me after seeing this comment that the thumbnail was actually faked. However, I'm not going to dismiss a whole video just because of some dumb fake twitter picture. I don't use twitter anyway and I won't curse anyone out for something like that. That said, I am not going to justify it either. It was confusing to me after all and sad to see that OPS actually right now have basically no ears and don't speak out about their mistakes. They're a struggling business, for crying out loud; I don't think their priorities are set straight.
Everything Dave Super Powers did was to validate his own type…which I don’t think he typed himself correctly. Obviously, I don’t know for sure. I’m not him. But if he can be so arrogant as to assert that he can objectively type someone with only an hour long video better than that person could type themselves, then the same logic is true to him. I should be able to watch all his videos and type him more accurately than he can type himself.
@@ewe6096 What is your idea of his type? I especially find it highly unlikely that his 2nd function would be Fi as he proposes, given that everything he says and the whole theory idea radiates high Te.
This video would have had a lot more respect of information if the thumbnail, title AND end messages weren’t all completely different from the start to middle. In other words you had some good points, but you were even more hypocritical than the situation you were pointing out which doesn’t look good.
I’m ENTP in a he MBTI. But in his system I’m INFJ masculine assertive. It’s bull. It’s not objective. It’s adding layers of unnecessary complexity. With his method someone can pick a type and then through the various coins argue how those coins change that base type into looking like a different type. You can be an Ni dominant and because it’s masculine and/or assertive it looks like Ne. Then why isn’t it just Ne?
You get so much wrong here... If you are saying that they have to check 512 different things, then there's clearly a huge misunderstanding you have of the system. If you don't get the concept of the "coins", then you shouldn't be making videos in the way of seemingly acting as if you understand the system. A lot of this seems to be a projection of your views and understandings without getting into their perspective of what they are saying and in my opinion, that is an extremely unconscious way of going about this. Just as unconscious as me being compelled to state this stuff to you. Hopefully the people interested in knowing what is true or not will actually look into this stuff themselves before hopping on your bandwagon...
@@pocketfulofposey I figured because I didn't think that uses Twitter, but even if it was real it would be missing context and I would believe they would say something like that ironically 🤣
good points but you criticize the gap between their advertising strategy and reality/actual content and then you do the same thing in this video by creating a gap between the title (advertising strategy) and content (saying they're probably set for a long time forward etc)
I would agree with you in some points, one can definitely not know you basing on an one hour video. Also, adding more and more coins only complicates the system. On the other hand, MBTI is also not a good standard. Why is there no mention of big five, which is actually more accepted in the psychology community? With MBTI system or any other system that includes dichotomies I think we are missing a lot flexibility. I personally think that peoples brains are much more fluid and changeable than any coin can explain. Whatever available personality test you take, the results are gonna change with years if you are growing. Percentages in big five also change naturally with years because of more more experience and wisdom. And there are factors like the situation in which you are getting typed, circumstances you are going through at that particular time, your age, IQ, honesty, clearness of mind, social circle… many many factors. Definitely something to think about. To sum up, I think that we need more fluid system linked to the human biology but also other external factors.
OPS is one of the, if not the, most articulate and rational take on mbti. The theory is sophisticated, nuanced and very rich in providing an insight into variations in how human mind works. But its just a theory and is not guaranteed to work 💯 - human mind and psychology seems to be too complex to be reduced to some universal system.
@@robinfa1477 because it is an unhealthy state to be in..an infj that is using fe properly due to looping is empathy impaired and Utilizing subconscious functions incorrectly.
Mhm... as en Enfp, what I see with Dave an Shannon is the effort to find better, more practical and faster categorisations that also comprehends the individuality of people ... something I appreciate very much and that I think is helpful (Te). Might be they overdo it (they might take some shortcuts in labelling people) and might be they make some mistakes ... but as Enfp this can never lead me in the wrong direction. I don't think of systems as having to be absolutely true or as having to be absolutely proven and finalized... I look more in direction of the added value of the system as a whole.
You're right, coming up with simple and easy classifications is their strength, while missing the theoretical or analytical framework behind or more in-depth explanations. And whenever they show holes or lack in understanding, they need to create more coins to make up for it. It's a system of breadth, rather than depth, which will appeal to some, while others might dislike it.
@@ErikThor I honestly think they are deep - it is just a completely different angle - not using ti. I know that categorisation are always faulty ... they can never cover every individual logical angle. Strong ti- users can deal with that and start from blank every time again and again. But fi- users as myself are in need for logical categorisations to help them as a kind of containment for the variety of individual values of people. But we fi-users are very exact in this and we can deal with every individual 'emotional' angle (the categories are just a first filter). I might not express my point of view very well - it seems to be a ti-world everywhere ... but there is logic to fi, too 😃
I don’t like seeing people fall. I want them to succeed… But OPS was simply wrong - and obviously wrong… that’s the part that mind boggles me. But MBTI is also wrong… At least OPS TRIED to integrate the truth that the so-called “tertiary” is the true auxiliary (they didn’t pull the trigger because they have to cater to an ignorant audience that trusts MBTI and hasn’t read Psychological Types by Carl Jung AT ALL… so they simply integrated the “jumper”…) What they really did wrong was the same thing MBTI and Dario Nardi and Beebe and the rest did… They REDEFINED the cognitive functions. They accepted the improper order and attitude of functions. I say - don’t call yourself Jungian BASED AT ALL if you’re going to do that. Invent your own system entirely… There are 8 cognitive functions. You will tend to be a certain kind of person based on what your DOMINANT function is. Then, your auxiliary is the opposite kind of function, but in the SAME attitude. I.e. - Te Se; Ne Fe; Si Fi; Ti Ni… etc. Then your shadow is the inverse of that - Te Se (Fi Ni); Ne Fe (Si Ti). And your shadow governs your cognition from behind the scenes. You can perform metacognition and begin to differentiate your subconscious and become more aware… or you can stay imbalanced and lean too much on your conscious preference. If you do the former, you probably lived a life of struggle and overcame. If you do the latter, you end up struggling LATER with mental illness. This was the WHOLE THRUST of “Psychological Types”. It is infinitely more simple than people make it out to be. People want to be more special than that…but it’s not important to BE MORE SPECIAL via cognitive functions. If you want to be more special, you can be the most badass, high I.Q. ESFJ on the planet… Just differentiate your shadow. You’ll ENHANCE your typical “Fe Ne” attitude with a CONSCIOUS balance of “Ti Si” - you’ll basically be a Richard Feynman… who was very socially and emotionally intelligent (this is an example based on hearsay, I don’t know the man), but was able to tap into his brain and begin to unlock some mysteries of the universe. It is called “transcendence”. Then… you can dig really deep and access the REST of your unconscious functions if you really want to. You’ll just be in charge of your own mind. Then.. you can’t really be TYPED very easily. You will have a natural tendency or preference you’ll default to when you are REALLY tired… but that’s about it. So then your “type” will be who you are when you’re pissed. Done. Otherwise, you’re going to look like 5 - 10 different types though the day because YOU’RE A HUMAN BEING - not a worker bee… Well… some are simpler, but… that can be okay, too. It just depends on what your life and situation demands out of you. But it’s really this simple. Not to neglect - the TRUE AUXILIARY follows the dominant in attitude. There IS NO “Ni Fe” INFJ. There IS NO “Fi Ne” INFP. If you’re using Fe aux, and you’re an intuitive dominant, you ARE ENTP (MBTI label… SHOULD be called ENFP for “Extraverted intuition and feeling, preference for perceiving”, but I distress (edit - digress… but I guess I DO DISTRESS, LOL…). If you’re using Ne aux and you’re a feeling dominant, you ARE ESFJ. (Should be called “ENFJ” for “Extraverted Intuition and Feeling, with preference for judging”). Notice how MY labels for these two types MAKE SENSE and the two types can actually be said to BE RELATED. They are BOTH Ne and Fe users… but they are switched as to which one uses the judging function dominantly (ENFJ) and perceiving function dominantly (ENFP). But they would be called “ENTP and ESFJ” in MBTI… but even more catastrophically, because many base their type on their AUX function… they would THINK they are INFJ and INFP. Go figure on that stuff? It’s really simple. Jung made it very clear and simple… everyone else complicated it for no good reason whatsoever. Anyone who does any differently from these ideas I CAN’T TRUST because they don’t have a proper foundation - until they can actually prove that there is a VALID reason to turn Jung on his head… Then they shouldn’t. I started with MBTI… and dig and dug. And ended up accepting what Jung said himself over what everyone else said because he ACTUALLY MAKES SENSE. The only person I’ve seen online who takes cognitive psychology seriously is Harry of CPT. And I don’t necessarily agree with EVERYTHING… but he’s the only one I’ve seen who has read and comprehended Jung and is attempting to genuinely correct where things may be off and to genuinely “evolve” these ideas into a true science. Still… I think we make things far too complicated. It is very, very simple. OPS ADDED complications… a common sign that the fundamentals were never understood and possibly that they were never possessing the intention to understand. Things only SEEM complicated when we’re ignorant about a thing… some people imagine that the interior of electronics is so mysterious and complicated and difficult to understand. The truth is that if you break open some electronics and inspect some… you begin to see that it’s common sense and not magic at all. The same goes for ALL things that we add complexity to for no good reason other than to build up the Ivory Tower to make ourselves appear as so far beyond others so that one can capitalize on that perceived disparity. Compared to God - we’re all ALMOST equally ignorant… and certainly all equally ANTS. No mortal comes close to God, not at all. And yet, He made things quite simple to comprehend if we will stop allowing ourselves to believe that this tiny things are as big as we think. The human brain is the best machine ever created… and despite that, compared to God, it is INFINITELY simpler. Alright. There’s my crazy rant for the day.
@@ErikThor Indeed Erik, I’m relatively familiar with it. I wouldn’t dare say that I fully comprehend everything Harry means to get across in the exact way that he intends his ideas to be understood - I would certainly defer to him on his own ideas… the only PERSONAL opinion I have different from his that I can immediately point at is his definition of intuition… it’s not an uncommon one, actually. I don’t think intuition is SIMPLY recognizing patterns… I think it actually is a little more… hmm.. “Quantum” than that. I would be afraid to refer to a cognitive function as spiritual as by definition it is a function of the physical brain. But it can’t be dismissed that if we’re souls inhabiting the body, then there must be some mechanism for that soul to connect with the body; and then that becomes a scientific dilemma, doesn’t it?? Which is why, even if I’m a firm “causation” kind of thinker, referring to the “quantumness” of ANY function (especially intuition) is my way of saying that we can OVERLY reduce the functions to their mere… physicality. But then, that’s what we have to work with and experiment with, so hardly a fault can be laid on anyone who needs to design their personal framework based upon what is tangible; in the most abstract definition of tangible as one is able to muster, considering the mind itself may not be entirely just THE brain… the best we can do is know that the brain ACCESSES the mind. In this way, it becomes apparent to realize that with intuition, we may very well be attributing a spiritual trait to the physical domain. But then it becomes apparent that may actually be the case for all the cognitive functions!! Who is to say that Extraverted Sensing isn’t the soul’s PERCEPTION of what is tangible, as interpreted by the brain’s processing? Therefore - I’m personally willing to attribute a little more “abstract” power to the cognitive functions; while still retaining the basic Jungian foundation and perspective. I think intuition as a function can LITERALLY provide information that one has NO BUSINESS knowing. I think that because that has been my experience with MY intuition. So, it’s anecdotal. But I don’t think I’m special; so this has to be the case for everyone else. I understand that people will feel tempted to reduce that down to a series of LOGICAL “How-tos” - I am guilty of the SAME exact kind of thinking! If it weren’t for my experience, I would absolutely think the same way as others - that the true mechanism of intuition is simply an unconscious repository of multiple scenarios which are tied together in the mind by some “likeness” between them which creates shortcuts in understanding for interdisciplinary purposes. THAT is a thing that happens, but I don’t think that is intuition.. I think that is Introverted Sensing. Because the mind doesn’t differentiate between a chair and a party. Grammatically, they are both nouns. They are both things. They are both ideas which excite images in the mind representing specific concepts. Having a repository of a variety of these things and then making observations of what is going on in front of you by comparing to that repository of PATTERNS is simply Sensing by comparison, or Introverted Sensing. Jung also attributes to Introverted Sensing a very associative style of cognition - for example, the idea of seeing someone as an Angel when they’re good or a Demon when they’re bad… a rough example, but that gets the rough idea across. But, for the most part, I think Harry does a good job of trying to reconcile some of the more obvious issues in typology. I’m glad to learn from his perspective and I’ll be excited to see what he learns from his studies!! I thought I was done ranting!! LOL
@@ProfessorBorax It is simple. Do you see my comment being nearly as long as ANY of the material? I could probably tighten that up and explain each function… Or, you could read “Psychological Types” chapter X online. (Carl Jung, 1921).
I can just imagine how the conversation went: "no way am I an ESTJ, I know myself" "uhm ESTJs aren't self aware at all, so it's only natural that you don't know you're an ESTJ"
Eh, not sure I agree. They’re not scientists but i’m sure their own methods would give some kind of normal distribution of typing a person. Meaning, averaged out over multiple typings they may land on the same type with higher frequency.
Shannon didn’t even type herself correctly. In fact, I sent them several messages of how she has Ni blindspot and Se critic rather than her being an ENTJ jumper with Se child stronger than her Ni parent.
I think the problem is more about people complaining about how they come off, than their system by itself, I agree they might be overly confident in their assertions, and also complicate things too much, making it difficult for people to understand, or also having shallow definitions for some things, but I also think that doesn't mean it's all fake, it also took some time for me to understand, even now I don't undertand it completely, but I find it to be interesting system, it gave me an new perspective into typology, and it helped me get unstuck from just MBTI, that wasn't making much sense for me anymore, but also I use "cognitive personality theory" as well, I like those theories, they are similar in a way I think, but what I think about all of this is that MBTI is viewed as the best, and whenever someone goes out of it, they get offended, or something along those lines.
I love Cognitive Personality Theory as well. I was typed by Harry & had 3 x 1 hour video calls & a lot of email correspondence & Im continuing with type development with the service. I've found I had unlearn a lot of the illogical foundations that MBTI was premised as well as some other systems.
Can someone show me where OP launched new dichotomies that led to over 2000 types? I hadn’t heard of this prior to this video and I’d like to learn more.
that sounds kind of wack. if they have over 2000 types, then it would be 2048 types, and they would have added not one, but two more coins. That is a 11-coin model.
At the core of personality typing is comprehending and defining the cognitive functions, and that is a big open book. Yet, you have to have a definition if you want to create a system. However, any house can be weakened by undermining the foundation. Hence, we are now back to subjectivity. Type theory interest has probably peaked anyway.
The best descriptions are vague, I never verified my type, I took several quizzes and got different answers (because I can get any result I feel like at any time) so the best way to 'know' which one outside of being personally studied is to hear what people say about a type and kinda relate to it more than other ones. By this I mean when they say "this kind of thing happens to this type a lot, or this type feels this kind of way in social situations" and then when they narrow it down a bit, it clicks. If you don't agree with this assessment that is fine but don't let people who don't know you make assessments about you✌️
I find the functions, etc, as a good way to think about things. The idea of making it into a more objective hard science seems really difficult and maybe not a great idea anyway.
There are a lot of bad logical arguments in this video like saying there's a split binning of 2 people for each type in a 1000 sample size. The OP system is a 1) a multimodal distribution 2) has higher predictive accuracy if you get 10 people to type you. 3) The title is clickbait 4) Link the tweet in the thumbnail 5) You completely misunderstand the definition of objectivity because it does not mean 100% accuracy... it is about observation of data (video typing you need more data) and reproducibility + testability (blind typings before comparing). Also having more metrics with more coins makes way more sense for a trait based system than MBTI. Have you never heard of large language models and vector math? Big bruh moment from this video
Honestly, your points are all good and sound, so I am not going to argue you on this. I’ve spoke. to the merit of their typing method before. I’m just addressing other concerns and issues I hope they will address eventually.
Using cognitive functions is correct if you get intuitive functions correct. Perceiving and judging have no meaning aside from the functions. If you don't conflate extraverted thinking eith extraverted intuition, it works. Extaverted thinking focuses on what is known and is paired with either introverted intuition (plan for self) or introverted sensing (memory). Extraverted feeling is judging tribal values or mood with the same introverted planning memory functions. These are judging types. If the extraverted function of the pair is dominant, one us extraverted. If the introverted function is dominant, you are an introvert. Introverted Thinking is based on thinking about the world by the self, with introverted feeling being about having your own values/honor/emotions. These are perceiving and are paired with gathering information from the world or making plans for the external world with the same introverted extroverted dichotomy based on which fuctional pair is stronger or more comfortable. The issue is that ENFPs can look introverted in their expression, even when their prime function is extraverted intuition. That this occurs is why they can be "blast last." Or, maybe those who stumble over words are INFP rather than ENFP.
The title of this video is very misleading. OP has come up with a new system that's, in my experience, proven to be a lot faster to type people in the real world than the big 5. Why do you have to contribute to cancel culture with your clickbait title? You could have chosen to voice your concerns in a respectful manner. I'd like to see how you react to a video with the title "The end of Erik Thor's career".
You still have no intercoder/interrater reliability. Pretty sure you don’t understand it. They have it. You need more than two raters, but yes this is how a lot of behavioral research works. What is your degree in this field?
I watched the video and what I hear is that you made a 12 minute video signal boosting the response of other people. And gave reasons why other people think it is gets harder to validate their claims. I understand the concern as they also provide paid services. But as a blatant comparison please take into consideration how what Dave did was unfounded for years for the mbti system as now we have clear definitions of the functions, the OPS functions. While if you look at socionics or even to a scientist Dario Nardi, who takes the whole function thing very softly; you can see at least now we have one more interpretation useful. But I understand as I'm an intp and a little too self aware, so I understand where I'm going from might be alien to people who think about the system and its use more pragmaticaly, and less as an addition to their knowledge.
I watched the video and what I hear is that you made a 12 minute video signal boosting the response of other people. And gave reasons why other people think it is gets harder to validate their claims. I understand the concern as they also provide paid services. But as a blatant comparison please take into consideration how what Dave did was unfounded for years for the mbti system as now we have clear definitions of the functions, the OPS functions. While if you look at socionics or even to a scientist Dario Nardi, who takes the whole function thing very softly; you can see at least now we have one more interpretation useful. But I understand as I'm an intp and a little too self aware, so I understand where I'm going from might be alien to people who think about the system and its use more pragmaticaly, and less as an addition to their knowledge.
In a sense objective doesn't work for me because I understand the system and think about it. But I am the last person to try to match the coins perfectly. But as Dave goes on about the main thing is to grow. Like if I would miss type myself but me seeing idk an Ni on the top and would try to compensate for demon Se. It might still benefit my life one way or another. Of course I understand what I am saying I use a knife as a toothpick haha
@@ferenccsenkey3343 I'm curious what you perceive to be the clear definition of the OPS functions? Do you mean things like Ti = self reasons, or 'what works for me" as being the clear definitions?
Without the results, we can't know how far off the original typing was from the second one, but it's actually possible that an "ESTJ" could only be one coin off from an "ENFP." TeNe vs NeTe.
Wow, saying "the end of OPS" feels like a bold statement, in my opinion.
Surely some things need to continue to be corrected and refined in the OPS system, but some of the discoveries and observations they've made along the years felt ground braking and innovating. Deeply changing our understanding of type. Like the Observers vs Deciders and the obsession with Things vs People. This observation does make a lot of sense from a cognitive perspective and can help with the identification of a person's type.
The fact that their system is still under development and they are transparent about their progress, their work and their mistakes, can show a potential for continual development.
Ultimately, in the field of typology (as in many other fields) I feel no single system can trump, and that only by bringing together the knowledge offered by multiple systems, can typology - as a unified field - mature and become a rounded and sharp tool for self knowledge. And this means: seeing the gems in all these different systems, and honouring those systems for the knowledge they managed to bring to this unified field.
I agree that a reduction in complexity could prove useful, though.
@@DenisaNastase What makes things vs people have more of a logical connection to deciders and observers than thinking and feeling in your idea?
@@PowerRedBullTypology Hey PowerRedBull, cool to see you here. I've seen your comments on other type related videos, and I remember liking the sharpness and inquisitorial nature of some of them. Related to the question you posed.. not sure I actually understood? Were you asking how do I see the connection between Things/People - Observers/Deciders?
@@PowerRedBullTypology And a short answer: I've met beings with Te first that 80% of what they would mostly talk and think about is people. So it doesn't seem like Thinking would be more oriented towards Things, and Feeling towards People. It actually seems like.. all Deciders (Thinkers and Feelers) are somewhat obsessed with (or scared of) people.
@@DenisaNastase First of all, thanks for your kind words about my comments!
Secondly, the question I tried to ask was why you think the association between decider/observer and people/things makes so much sense. For example when compared to the 'oldschool view' that feeling functions are orientated towards people/values and thinking functions more related to things in my opinion seems more logical?
Let's say if we take Ti as a function, which is a detached analysis function that someone does internally. According to OPS this is a 'people' function, implying it concerns itself with people, even though in videos about Ti by OPS it's more implied as being about things (I think in an example with building a 10 layer deep complex tool,?). This tool thing however seems clearly a _thing_ and not related to people at all. I am curious why you prefer the OPS view on this, despite it seems counter intuitive in the case of Ti for example? In the 'oldschool' view Ti would be more about things, simply because it's a thinking function.
I think a difference with OPS and other typology systems, is OPS is still developing in real-time whereas other systems are already established I.e. MBTI.
Recognition of mistypying does not correlate to failure of a system But work needs to be added. Its not strange for science to follow a said model or idea and have newer information that alters perception and understanding. This happened with the model of an atom, even the theory of evolution as well as planets and their respective orbits(to list a few examples).
This was the only case where the same person was typed and them not noticing it's the same person. If anything, it implies lots of people would be typed differently if only Dave would not recognize it's the same person. Since he's Te, he has problably made sure it's not possible to happen again. Did they not remove the phonecall typing option?
I think ops is great. The reason people bail is likely either internal conflicts within the community or their political beliefs and opinions leaking out in their videos, especially by Shan. That grates me, however the system in itself is stellar and gets my stamp of approval and so I continue watching. The info is good.
I don't think its true they market ops as you say, I find your description of it in the first minute disingenuous - they've always said it's about having different people coming to the same conclusion about someones type. Dave and Shan and recruiters typing people the same way despite sitting in different rooms. Becoming solid on definitions over time. They want a process that is repeatable and consistent. And they never offered your true type, just that they'd type people to the best of their ability if you sent them a video. They've always been upfront about how one video is not enough to type with great certainty.
yeah I mainly lost respect for them when they opened the video and Shan was crying over George Floyd's death. It looked staged.
@@billyb4790 That was a hard watch. I don't know whether it was staged or not - I will presume NOT, but I disliked that video the most. And all the comments did the typical: you so brave, this is horrible etc. etc.
@@billyb4790 Wait why is crying about George Floyd's death bad??
@@oscarl.3563 because it looked fake.
They made some good videos explaining the functions back in the day but all of the "blast" and the "feminine" "masculine" stuff threw their good information into question. They also had this extreme arrogance about typology which seemed odd for such a subjective field that it had to be an affectation.
The arrogance! I’ll second you there; it’s so off-putting and feels like they’re not taking their service seriously 😒
Yes!!! 👏👏👏 the arrogance they had was ridiculous.
Also, I can’t believe for one second that Dave in an INTJ. When would Ni add more possibilities? Ni would simplify. He did the opposite.
@@ewe6096 both were mistyped, both were arrogant and they did not seem like healthy people. No go for me
@@ewe6096 I think multiplication can also be "blamed" on Te, as it does not simplify like Ti, just like all extroverted functions in some way or another are about expansion and the introversion about reduction
@@ewe6096 In one of their videos, Dave mentioned when they started to discover some of the different aspects of personality type, it forced them to consider more possibilities. One of the major shortcomings of many type systems is that there are too few categories... 16 types just isn't enough to account for the differences that some people have within a particular type... Of course Ni wants to narrow things down, but not to the extent that it goes against the observations being made and begins to degrade the accuracy of the system. With regard to the arrogance that people seem to perceive, it's always been part of their message that, we all suck at our personality type and one type isn't better than another. It does make sense that some people might perceive them to be arrogant, but I think that might be a misinterpretation of their style and intentions...
What’s with the fake thumbnail and bold baity video title that you yourself deny at the end?
I never felt like Dave & Shan were knowingly or deliberately misleading their audience in any way - I had a gut feeling that they were earnest and serious about their ideas and what they were selling, based on what they found useful in their own lives. It's just that they got ahead of themselves with a very, very ambitious project, and with their typing service, they wound up having to mass-produce something that needs to be deeply personal.
Nice work, and excellent analysis of the pressures that the OPS community places on individual members.
They seemed to be respected in r/mbti but I even found Frank James' pop psych version more useful, OP calling energies "masculine" or "feminine", or calling inferior function the "demon" was confusing and really turned me off. I happen to like Cognitive Personality Theory more, because he doesn't view things as absolutes and disregards stereotypes, which is so helpful for someone who has typed as ENTP, INTP, ENFP, INFP, and INTJ and has a Ne>Ni>Ti>Fi>Si=Te>Fe>Se function strength which doesn't really fit one specific type well.
Disclaimer: I have no idea what they are talking about though I have paid for their tools and went through the first 10 of 40-something pages of videos on their website.
1. Scientists, like Shan and Dave, also say they are not sure of what is true and false. This claim does not invalidate their work. Therefore the language in this video projects subjective feelings by saying that the couple makes "aggressive" "assertions". They are observations for the sake of a scientofoc system. Which leads to my next point:
2. The fine print on the website should not say this is " Not an objective system", as you stated in this video. That would directly nullify the title of their system. What is valid for them to say, if anything, is that the system itself is not a scientific one, but they utilize the Scientific Method to derive emperical, measurable results.
3. They themselves have also stated that it is nearly impossible to type someone's whole life in 20 minutes or in 1 video. This may beget the argument that they are hypocritical in typing anyone in the first place, however it is the fact that by typing someone in 20min to an hour or however long it takes in a session, you will definitely fit into a one of 512 categories. The categories themselves are not what is 100% true, just like the system of science itself no one can claim to be 100% true because at some point someone subjectively came up with the concept of science. What os 100% true though, is that you can be tracked and measured by the 512 categories of the system.
If scientists and society can use Science to observe that the planets revolve around Earth and hold this notion for centuries, I think Shan and Dave can use OBS and type people wrong.
This video is a good example of critical thinking. FYI: one channel I recommend for fans of personality typing is TypeVolution. She’s new and some of the theories are strange but that’s the appeal. There’s actually many people who do it better than Objective Personality, now and probably will be in the future too. If you want to theorize, just admit it.
I like her channel a lot as well. I think Dave and Shan's Te has gone insane lately but idk
I recommend Cognitive Personality Theory; I was typed by them & had 3 1 hour video calls & email correspondence. The theory is being supported by research as well
They never claim to know your type 100%, in fact they make a point to claim the opposite. The fact that you think this shows you know very little about the matter.
I believe I said this at the end of the video.
I started to become quite skeptical of OP. The very nature also takes away what a lot of people find interesting about typology--finding yourself. They took away the self-reflection aspect and said "no, you are wrong about your type", and it felt like they would purposely type people differently than what people type themselves.
You miss the fact how it's really up to your type and self biasses how you would mistype. How intps would see themselves entj just because intps seek the respect and actually achievements. Esfps as infjs because they always want the best of everything. And especially how you saw your opposite of energy of yourself.
@@ferenccsenkey3343 I'm not missing this fact at all. It's obvious this happens. OP overemphasizes this mistyping and uses it to strip away control of typing from individuals so they can dictate it as professionals through their very specific and convoluted method.
they didn’t take away shit, I’m still learning things about my self going back to their old content
@@WestwoodC21 Are you real now? Who told you they have to do it? You both saying you would need to depend on them and also it's either one method or the other.
Like just take the system and go with it, get a friend to figure it out.
Most of the system what is published on youtube is already finely written together as resources, such as their methods.
Also I am sorry, I know this is an opinionpiece, but I don't see value in self reflection what is not seated in something concrete? What does self reflection means if you don't have a concrete and full picture of yourself? You get your type done, you realize you are an ashole this way and that way, then spend your time in this planet being less of an asshole.
Like me being here doing the Ti talk. While I could also just send you an affirming like and let you go on your way.
Here's the thing, I don't know about this girl that have been mistyped but what I do know is:
- They didn't claim that they can get your type a 100% and if you had questions about your type they will answer and work out the problem WITH YOU NOT FOR YOU, meaning you have to point out the misunderstandings and they will clear everything up and if they mess up they will work it out
- You're saying that this girl didn't agree with being an ESTJ means that she isn't an ESTJ ,so why there are expert like you and Objective personality, why don't anyone just type themleves then
- You're saying that they are not gaining any new subscribers, yet they beat the hell out of your 40 some thousand subscribers
Last thing, I heard a quote from Gary Vee and it goes like this "There's two ways to build the biggest building in town, you can either bash and tear other people's buildings OR you just build the biggest building in town" by working hard, getting better and improve overtime.
And by the way, I'm not saying Objective personality is right and you are wrong ,no one is forcing anyone to go to objective personality, you make up your own mind, if it's not for you then okay no problem.
Maybe it's not the end, but a new beginning.
We are not perfect, we are not robots. Typologists, psychologists, doctors... everyone make mistakes.
I think we need the both views to be certain : the subjective and the objective.
For MBTI, I thought I understood that at the end only the subject, the person can validate his own type. He can be agree or not with the results.
I like their system, it's useful and fun. Very accurate for me. I am very introspective, I think it help a lot.
I typed myself 2 years ago by learning this system and with the test which where on your website at this moment (I got my right type the first time)
Later I was happy a psychologist told me my learning style was Kinesthetic dominant, because it validated the modalities of my OPS type.
It also validated my MBTI type and my subtype in another system.
Do you do anything but comment on CZcams videos?
@@kindauncool How so?
@@kindauncool I laughed way too hard at this comment
The only two good points here that are true, os that the community sucks when handling people that question their type, and that their definitions could be improved.
And this is in reference to what relates to objective personality specifically.
If you don’t think they have enough disclaimers you either haven’t really engaged with their content or you’re easily fooled
Eric has aged about 10 years from Dave giving him nightmares
or maybe because it has been 10 years since he got to know Dave…:)
Tbh though, there are so many people who have put OP on some kind typology pedestal and have given them too much authority. Like you say Erik, there is a margin of error due to factors mentioned. People do have to take a certain amount of responsibility for looking to OP as a prime typology authority which you can clearly see in their previous online publicity and ratings
Their system was far too ‘Te’ fied. Everything shoehorned to fit into their system became lifeless
❤
agreed. So much Te
I thought it was too much Ni :P
Agreed....they poke fun at what high Te users do that is bad and then do just that.....
Agreed. They did not represent Fe users well
That was exactly my theory. Why would they want you to spend months on their classes first to learn their OPS theory and only THEN you get the access to be officially typed. Why so? So that they can convince you better, so you'd be more prone to accepting their results (and they can make more money in the proccess). The system must be perfect, no errors, no mistakes, or else it is not objective, right? There is no such thing as objective. They knew this, so they tried very hard to avoid this problem
Oh man I clicked on this thinking it said "The end of Objective Reality" but it turns out I was just as interested in this! I watched OP for a long time but realized I was getting... almost cult indoctrinated to their system. Which, if anything, shows how well it was designed, but I had to unsub b/c it was basically too addicting to feel like I was honing a skill but was a little too scary realizing I was basically just copying 2 random people on the internet doing it. The utility of it was deeply in question and it changed my relationship with MBTI ever since.
A cult? Like mbti? Like eneagram? Sounds like there are people who just prefer this system over an other. Calling something a cult reveals more witch hunters than cultists in my opinion.
You sound like a coward.
@@ferenccsenkey3343 their arrogance is quite high and that is cultish.
Honestly i have a hard time considering objective personality system as the same despite using the same names for types as mbti or jungian typology
The problem is that the definitions of the functions is misleading at it's core
Consider that intuition is considered to be imagination in their system for instance, but those are two different mental abilities
I still like objective personality,
Mainly their animal stuff is very true, and now the social types they came up with is also very true and observable ,
And there modalities about visual and all is also true, it explains a lot of things
Right now it's difficult to type 512 or 2000 types but as we get more advancement in AI it will get much better with time i guess
And most of the block is people don't know themselves enough to say correct things
Is everything observable true?
@@ewe6096 it seems to be for me
specially their animal section
Like i am constantly blasting and all
And they also have a concept if you have masculine intuition you have strong visual and bad with dates and all and vise versa
It all seems to be true for me
@@p_k_2000 the question was if everything observable was true. The converse of that question would be is there ever a time that something observable is not true.
Also, in order for something to be an objective it must be repeatable, not just with you but across a large sample.
@@ewe6096 yeah sometimes observable things are not true , humans are complex creature
All i care about is i benifited from it , and to me it still appears to be objective but idk not going to fight for it or anything
@@quagmire434ou’re just biased. So you’re telling me the greater MBTI community is scientific in any way? Please, there’s wrong interpretations all over the place. OP’s definitions are at least stable to the point where we can debate its validity. And their system has been observable in my experience as well. They mistyped one person, like they actually care about their community members, it’s a business. The people who actually pay to get typed have it coming; they obviously find typing celebrities far more interesting. That’s there Fi deep at work.
I don’t have a problem with OP and their system but they seem to not get that cognitive functions are so deep, and confusing that it drives people away from the subject. Also thinking of functions first is the best way to quickly mistype. I used them to confirm only. They aren’t the only ones adding complexity to MBTI that’s so complex there are no accurate tests for it.
I understand what you mean about making it less “fun” when it comes to self-discovery. A lot of their type examples are very extreme and I couldn’t relate to almost any of them at all.
However, I will say the decider vs observer fears made it much easier for me to type. Same with the “jumper” concept, which is basically what looping is. I see a lot of their methods tie into what I previously learned about typology, so it was, personally, very helpful for me.
It’s kinda funny how long it took me to find out I was an INFP, even though it should’ve been obvious. Self-discovery really is a journey. The test on your website also confirmed I was an INFP, even the 16 Personalities test gave me INFP the first time I ever took it.
Interesting how it all worked out that way.
It's possible they could mistype people while still having an accurate theory. Some people might not give accurate information about themselves when taking a test or being typed by a professional, and they're not trying to intentionally give wrong information. I hate taking personality tests, because of blind Ni I almost never know the "correct" answer to the questions, but I was eventually able to type myself and some other people I know once I understood it. With the tests there's "no right answer", which is dumb, of course there should be a right answer that fits more than the others.
I frankly wonder what took OPS so long to unravel. It was just an endless coin generation without any integration of its theory into something remotely coherent.
Please share what you mean by “unravel” lol. Sidenote, Erik Thor talking about ops not growing fast like they did at first is funny considering how similar things could be said about Erik Thor’s channel which has less views on recent videos then it did in the past. And his sub count also has less movement then it did in the past.
You know what they say about glass houses….
And if we are being honest OPS still does great numbers in terms of views and 51k subs is no joke when it comes to niche typology stuff. Try reaching 51k while moving away from standard Mbti. And try doing it without going full CSJ dark magician clown demon warlock showcon mode.
And pretty much everyone except Frank James starts to slow down in terms of sub acquisition. CSJ been sitting at 61k for a while, OPS 51k, Erik Thor 41k you get the idea.
Frank James stuff however, cheap popcorn comedy with no theoretical exploration of typology is the kind of stuff that will go full Hollywood over 1 million subs and growing lol
@@EndlessKurtis good point. Erik, is OP dead/dying or are you just chasing clout here?
I was interested to hear your opinion, until I Se checked and saw the thumbnail was faked in order to get attention. That move automatically makes everything you say from here on, invalid to me as you have shown that anything you produce cannot be trusted.
They did apologize, as told in the video, but yeah the tweet was just to sum it up in a thumbnail :)
@@ErikThorbut why not put something truthful down to maintain your integrity?
@@pocketfulofposey the entire video is truthful and in the emails they do apologize. i could have used an email template instead of a tweet i guess but the gist is the same.
@@ErikThor if you want to maintain integrity, just don’t fake documents. It’s that simple.
It did surprise me after seeing this comment that the thumbnail was actually faked. However, I'm not going to dismiss a whole video just because of some dumb fake twitter picture. I don't use twitter anyway and I won't curse anyone out for something like that. That said, I am not going to justify it either. It was confusing to me after all and sad to see that OPS actually right now have basically no ears and don't speak out about their mistakes. They're a struggling business, for crying out loud; I don't think their priorities are set straight.
is the thumbnail photoshopped? 🙄
Thanks for sharing Erick💜
I knew OPS isn't right! I know it from the very start. I can easily spot inconsistency to theory it's instinct and I don't know why!
Everything Dave Super Powers did was to validate his own type…which I don’t think he typed himself correctly. Obviously, I don’t know for sure. I’m not him. But if he can be so arrogant as to assert that he can objectively type someone with only an hour long video better than that person could type themselves, then the same logic is true to him. I should be able to watch all his videos and type him more accurately than he can type himself.
@@ewe6096 What is your idea of his type? I especially find it highly unlikely that his 2nd function would be Fi as he proposes, given that everything he says and the whole theory idea radiates high Te.
This video would have had a lot more respect of information if the thumbnail, title AND end messages weren’t all completely different from the start to middle. In other words you had some good points, but you were even more hypocritical than the situation you were pointing out which doesn’t look good.
OPS fanboy: Your critique is invalid because you don't understand the system. Also, I love D&S. Shan is so beautiful. ❤
no wayyy nobody saw this cominggggg how could this have happeneddddd
😐
☕
I’m ENTP in a he MBTI. But in his system I’m INFJ masculine assertive.
It’s bull.
It’s not objective.
It’s adding layers of unnecessary complexity. With his method someone can pick a type and then through the various coins argue how those coins change that base type into looking like a different type.
You can be an Ni dominant and because it’s masculine and/or assertive it looks like Ne. Then why isn’t it just Ne?
Skill issue😊
@@tennebroussalley5678 🎤 drop
ur pressed about the ne possibilities ☠️ sounds like an Ni to me lolll. Also masculine ni is not like ne
You get so much wrong here...
If you are saying that they have to check 512 different things, then there's clearly a huge misunderstanding you have of the system.
If you don't get the concept of the "coins", then you shouldn't be making videos in the way of seemingly acting as if you understand the system.
A lot of this seems to be a projection of your views and understandings without getting into their perspective of what they are saying and in my opinion, that is an extremely unconscious way of going about this.
Just as unconscious as me being compelled to state this stuff to you.
Hopefully the people interested in knowing what is true or not will actually look into this stuff themselves before hopping on your bandwagon...
And his thumbnail is fake clickbait.
@@pocketfulofposey
I figured because I didn't think that uses Twitter, but even if it was real it would be missing context and I would believe they would say something like that ironically 🤣
good points but you criticize the gap between their advertising strategy and reality/actual content and then you do the same thing in this video by creating a gap between the title (advertising strategy) and content (saying they're probably set for a long time forward etc)
I would agree with you in some points, one can definitely not know you basing on an one hour video. Also, adding more and more coins only complicates the system. On the other hand, MBTI is also not a good standard. Why is there no mention of big five, which is actually more accepted in the psychology community?
With MBTI system or any other system that includes dichotomies I think we are missing a lot flexibility. I personally think that peoples brains are much more fluid and changeable than any coin can explain. Whatever available personality test you take, the results are gonna change with years if you are growing. Percentages in big five also change naturally with years because of more more experience and wisdom. And there are factors like the situation in which you are getting typed, circumstances you are going through at that particular time, your age, IQ, honesty, clearness of mind, social circle… many many factors. Definitely something to think about. To sum up, I think that we need more fluid system linked to the human biology but also other external factors.
OPS is one of the, if not the, most articulate and rational take on mbti. The theory is sophisticated, nuanced and very rich in providing an insight into variations in how human mind works. But its just a theory and is not guaranteed to work 💯 - human mind and psychology seems to be too complex to be reduced to some universal system.
I wish other MBTI systems would look into the concept of jumpers.
there has always been "loops"
@@dseer13 True, but they're always seen as unhealthy.
@@robinfa1477 because it is an unhealthy state to be in..an infj that is using fe properly due to looping is empathy impaired and Utilizing subconscious functions incorrectly.
Cognitive Personality Theory looks at intratype variation & the theory is much more reflective of reality & being back by scientific research.
@@Tified967 there's nothing scientific or "objective" about op.
So if these two independent "experts" came with different answers, what does that mean for their system and method?
Mhm... as en Enfp, what I see with Dave an Shannon is the effort to find better, more practical and faster categorisations that also comprehends the individuality of people ... something I appreciate very much and that I think is helpful (Te). Might be they overdo it (they might take some shortcuts in labelling people) and might be they make some mistakes ... but as Enfp this can never lead me in the wrong direction. I don't think of systems as having to be absolutely true or as having to be absolutely proven and finalized... I look more in direction of the added value of the system as a whole.
You're right, coming up with simple and easy classifications is their strength, while missing the theoretical or analytical framework behind or more in-depth explanations. And whenever they show holes or lack in understanding, they need to create more coins to make up for it. It's a system of breadth, rather than depth, which will appeal to some, while others might dislike it.
@@ErikThor I honestly think they are deep - it is just a completely different angle - not using ti.
I know that categorisation are always faulty ... they can never cover every individual logical angle.
Strong ti- users can deal with that and start from blank every time again and again.
But fi- users as myself are in need for logical categorisations to help them as a kind of containment for the variety of individual values of people. But we fi-users are very exact in this and we can deal with every individual 'emotional' angle (the categories are just a first filter).
I might not express my point of view very well - it seems to be a ti-world everywhere ... but there is logic to fi, too 😃
I don’t like seeing people fall. I want them to succeed…
But OPS was simply wrong - and obviously wrong… that’s the part that mind boggles me.
But MBTI is also wrong…
At least OPS TRIED to integrate the truth that the so-called “tertiary” is the true auxiliary (they didn’t pull the trigger because they have to cater to an ignorant audience that trusts MBTI and hasn’t read Psychological Types by Carl Jung AT ALL… so they simply integrated the “jumper”…)
What they really did wrong was the same thing MBTI and Dario Nardi and Beebe and the rest did…
They REDEFINED the cognitive functions. They accepted the improper order and attitude of functions.
I say - don’t call yourself Jungian BASED AT ALL if you’re going to do that. Invent your own system entirely…
There are 8 cognitive functions. You will tend to be a certain kind of person based on what your DOMINANT function is. Then, your auxiliary is the opposite kind of function, but in the SAME attitude.
I.e. - Te Se; Ne Fe; Si Fi; Ti Ni… etc.
Then your shadow is the inverse of that - Te Se (Fi Ni); Ne Fe (Si Ti).
And your shadow governs your cognition from behind the scenes.
You can perform metacognition and begin to differentiate your subconscious and become more aware… or you can stay imbalanced and lean too much on your conscious preference.
If you do the former, you probably lived a life of struggle and overcame.
If you do the latter, you end up struggling LATER with mental illness.
This was the WHOLE THRUST of “Psychological Types”.
It is infinitely more simple than people make it out to be.
People want to be more special than that…but it’s not important to BE MORE SPECIAL via cognitive functions.
If you want to be more special, you can be the most badass, high I.Q. ESFJ on the planet…
Just differentiate your shadow. You’ll ENHANCE your typical “Fe Ne” attitude with a CONSCIOUS balance of “Ti Si” - you’ll basically be a Richard Feynman… who was very socially and emotionally intelligent (this is an example based on hearsay, I don’t know the man), but was able to tap into his brain and begin to unlock some mysteries of the universe.
It is called “transcendence”.
Then… you can dig really deep and access the REST of your unconscious functions if you really want to. You’ll just be in charge of your own mind.
Then.. you can’t really be TYPED very easily. You will have a natural tendency or preference you’ll default to when you are REALLY tired… but that’s about it.
So then your “type” will be who you are when you’re pissed. Done. Otherwise, you’re going to look like 5 - 10 different types though the day because YOU’RE A HUMAN BEING - not a worker bee…
Well… some are simpler, but… that can be okay, too. It just depends on what your life and situation demands out of you.
But it’s really this simple.
Not to neglect - the TRUE AUXILIARY follows the dominant in attitude. There IS NO “Ni Fe” INFJ. There IS NO “Fi Ne” INFP. If you’re using Fe aux, and you’re an intuitive dominant, you ARE ENTP (MBTI label… SHOULD be called ENFP for “Extraverted intuition and feeling, preference for perceiving”, but I distress (edit - digress… but I guess I DO DISTRESS, LOL…).
If you’re using Ne aux and you’re a feeling dominant, you ARE ESFJ. (Should be called “ENFJ” for “Extraverted Intuition and Feeling, with preference for judging”).
Notice how MY labels for these two types MAKE SENSE and the two types can actually be said to BE RELATED. They are BOTH Ne and Fe users… but they are switched as to which one uses the judging function dominantly (ENFJ) and perceiving function dominantly (ENFP). But they would be called “ENTP and ESFJ” in MBTI… but even more catastrophically, because many base their type on their AUX function… they would THINK they are INFJ and INFP. Go figure on that stuff?
It’s really simple.
Jung made it very clear and simple… everyone else complicated it for no good reason whatsoever.
Anyone who does any differently from these ideas I CAN’T TRUST because they don’t have a proper foundation - until they can actually prove that there is a VALID reason to turn Jung on his head…
Then they shouldn’t.
I started with MBTI… and dig and dug. And ended up accepting what Jung said himself over what everyone else said because he ACTUALLY MAKES SENSE.
The only person I’ve seen online who takes cognitive psychology seriously is Harry of CPT. And I don’t necessarily agree with EVERYTHING… but he’s the only one I’ve seen who has read and comprehended Jung and is attempting to genuinely correct where things may be off and to genuinely “evolve” these ideas into a true science.
Still… I think we make things far too complicated.
It is very, very simple.
OPS ADDED complications… a common sign that the fundamentals were never understood and possibly that they were never possessing the intention to understand.
Things only SEEM complicated when we’re ignorant about a thing… some people imagine that the interior of electronics is so mysterious and complicated and difficult to understand.
The truth is that if you break open some electronics and inspect some… you begin to see that it’s common sense and not magic at all.
The same goes for ALL things that we add complexity to for no good reason other than to build up the Ivory Tower to make ourselves appear as so far beyond others so that one can capitalize on that perceived disparity.
Compared to God - we’re all ALMOST equally ignorant… and certainly all equally ANTS. No mortal comes close to God, not at all.
And yet, He made things quite simple to comprehend if we will stop allowing ourselves to believe that this tiny things are as big as we think.
The human brain is the best machine ever created… and despite that, compared to God, it is INFINITELY simpler.
Alright.
There’s my crazy rant for the day.
I enjoyed your crazy rant, thank you :) are you familiar with CPT?
@@ErikThor Indeed Erik, I’m relatively familiar with it. I wouldn’t dare say that I fully comprehend everything Harry means to get across in the exact way that he intends his ideas to be understood - I would certainly defer to him on his own ideas… the only PERSONAL opinion I have different from his that I can immediately point at is his definition of intuition… it’s not an uncommon one, actually. I don’t think intuition is SIMPLY recognizing patterns… I think it actually is a little more… hmm.. “Quantum” than that.
I would be afraid to refer to a cognitive function as spiritual as by definition it is a function of the physical brain. But it can’t be dismissed that if we’re souls inhabiting the body, then there must be some mechanism for that soul to connect with the body; and then that becomes a scientific dilemma, doesn’t it?? Which is why, even if I’m a firm “causation” kind of thinker, referring to the “quantumness” of ANY function (especially intuition) is my way of saying that we can OVERLY reduce the functions to their mere… physicality. But then, that’s what we have to work with and experiment with, so hardly a fault can be laid on anyone who needs to design their personal framework based upon what is tangible; in the most abstract definition of tangible as one is able to muster, considering the mind itself may not be entirely just THE brain…
the best we can do is know that the brain ACCESSES the mind. In this way, it becomes apparent to realize that with intuition, we may very well be attributing a spiritual trait to the physical domain. But then it becomes apparent that may actually be the case for all the cognitive functions!! Who is to say that Extraverted Sensing isn’t the soul’s PERCEPTION of what is tangible, as interpreted by the brain’s processing? Therefore - I’m personally willing to attribute a little more “abstract” power to the cognitive functions; while still retaining the basic Jungian foundation and perspective.
I think intuition as a function can LITERALLY provide information that one has NO BUSINESS knowing. I think that because that has been my experience with MY intuition. So, it’s anecdotal. But I don’t think I’m special; so this has to be the case for everyone else. I understand that people will feel tempted to reduce that down to a series of LOGICAL “How-tos” - I am guilty of the SAME exact kind of thinking! If it weren’t for my experience, I would absolutely think the same way as others - that the true mechanism of intuition is simply an unconscious repository of multiple scenarios which are tied together in the mind by some “likeness” between them which creates shortcuts in understanding for interdisciplinary purposes. THAT is a thing that happens, but I don’t think that is intuition.. I think that is Introverted Sensing. Because the mind doesn’t differentiate between a chair and a party. Grammatically, they are both nouns. They are both things. They are both ideas which excite images in the mind representing specific concepts. Having a repository of a variety of these things and then making observations of what is going on in front of you by comparing to that repository of PATTERNS is simply Sensing by comparison, or Introverted Sensing. Jung also attributes to Introverted Sensing a very associative style of cognition - for example, the idea of seeing someone as an Angel when they’re good or a Demon when they’re bad… a rough example, but that gets the rough idea across.
But, for the most part, I think Harry does a good job of trying to reconcile some of the more obvious issues in typology. I’m glad to learn from his perspective and I’ll be excited to see what he learns from his studies!!
I thought I was done ranting!! LOL
I like this post!
So simple XD 👌
@@ProfessorBorax It is simple.
Do you see my comment being nearly as long as ANY of the material? I could probably tighten that up and explain each function…
Or, you could read “Psychological Types” chapter X online. (Carl Jung, 1921).
I can just imagine how the conversation went:
"no way am I an ESTJ, I know myself"
"uhm ESTJs aren't self aware at all, so it's only natural that you don't know you're an ESTJ"
Eh, not sure I agree. They’re not scientists but i’m sure their own methods would give some kind of normal distribution of typing a person. Meaning, averaged out over multiple typings they may land on the same type with higher frequency.
Shannon didn’t even type herself correctly. In fact, I sent them several messages of how she has Ni blindspot and Se critic rather than her being an ENTJ jumper with Se child stronger than her Ni parent.
To be fair ESTJ and ENFP do value the same 4 functions. And have a lot in common. In a one hour video, it is not outrageous to make that mistake.
AFAIK, they don't say it's 100% accurate, but 90%. So this one mistake might be under those 10%
Is that thumbnail fake?
It is unfortunately XP
@@ProfessorBorax I hoped it would be real XD
I think the problem is more about people complaining about how they come off, than their system by itself, I agree they might be overly confident in their assertions, and also complicate things too much, making it difficult for people to understand, or also having shallow definitions for some things, but I also think that doesn't mean it's all fake, it also took some time for me to understand, even now I don't undertand it completely, but I find it to be interesting system, it gave me an new perspective into typology, and it helped me get unstuck from just MBTI, that wasn't making much sense for me anymore, but also I use "cognitive personality theory" as well, I like those theories, they are similar in a way I think, but what I think about all of this is that MBTI is viewed as the best, and whenever someone goes out of it, they get offended, or something along those lines.
I love Cognitive Personality Theory as well. I was typed by Harry & had 3 x 1 hour video calls & a lot of email correspondence & Im continuing with type development with the service. I've found I had unlearn a lot of the illogical foundations that MBTI was premised as well as some other systems.
Can someone show me where OP launched new dichotomies that led to over 2000 types? I hadn’t heard of this prior to this video and I’d like to learn more.
that sounds kind of wack. if they have over 2000 types, then it would be 2048 types, and they would have added not one, but two more coins. That is a 11-coin model.
The 4 "Social Types" were added. 4 x 512 = 2048, which is close to 2k.
At the core of personality typing is comprehending and defining the cognitive functions, and that is a big open book. Yet, you have to have a definition if you want to create a system. However, any house can be weakened by undermining the foundation. Hence, we are now back to subjectivity.
Type theory interest has probably peaked anyway.
They had a serious lull three or four years ago, but they have absolutely been kicking a$$ since 2020.
The best descriptions are vague, I never verified my type, I took several quizzes and got different answers (because I can get any result I feel like at any time) so the best way to 'know' which one outside of being personally studied is to hear what people say about a type and kinda relate to it more than other ones. By this I mean when they say "this kind of thing happens to this type a lot, or this type feels this kind of way in social situations" and then when they narrow it down a bit, it clicks. If you don't agree with this assessment that is fine but don't let people who don't know you make assessments about you✌️
The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
I find the functions, etc, as a good way to think about things. The idea of making it into a more objective hard science seems really difficult and maybe not a great idea anyway.
So, you just do it for fun. That's how OPS is different
There are a lot of bad logical arguments in this video like saying there's a split binning of 2 people for each type in a 1000 sample size. The OP system is a 1) a multimodal distribution 2) has higher predictive accuracy if you get 10 people to type you. 3) The title is clickbait 4) Link the tweet in the thumbnail 5) You completely misunderstand the definition of objectivity because it does not mean 100% accuracy... it is about observation of data (video typing you need more data) and reproducibility + testability (blind typings before comparing). Also having more metrics with more coins makes way more sense for a trait based system than MBTI. Have you never heard of large language models and vector math? Big bruh moment from this video
Honestly, your points are all good and sound, so I am not going to argue you on this. I’ve spoke. to the merit of their typing method before. I’m just addressing other concerns and issues I hope they will address eventually.
I told my 8 year old nephew that TI people wear hats and Fi people don't wear hats. We are typing people very objectively now..
“Experts know “ Said every Te user eva 😂
It's funny how this entire comment section is confused single-observers
Watched all of 3 vids at OP before I decided to frack off 😂
Using cognitive functions is correct if you get intuitive functions correct. Perceiving and judging have no meaning aside from the functions.
If you don't conflate extraverted thinking eith extraverted intuition, it works.
Extaverted thinking focuses on what is known and is paired with either introverted intuition (plan for self) or introverted sensing (memory). Extraverted feeling is judging tribal values or mood with the same introverted planning memory functions. These are judging types. If the extraverted function of the pair is dominant, one us extraverted. If the introverted function is dominant, you are an introvert.
Introverted Thinking is based on thinking about the world by the self, with introverted feeling being about having your own values/honor/emotions. These are perceiving and are paired with gathering information from the world or making plans for the external world with the same introverted extroverted dichotomy based on which fuctional pair is stronger or more comfortable. The issue is that ENFPs can look introverted in their expression, even when their prime function is extraverted intuition. That this occurs is why they can be "blast last." Or, maybe those who stumble over words are INFP rather than ENFP.
The title of this video is very misleading. OP has come up with a new system that's, in my experience, proven to be a lot faster to type people in the real world than the big 5. Why do you have to contribute to cancel culture with your clickbait title? You could have chosen to voice your concerns in a respectful manner. I'd like to see how you react to a video with the title "The end of Erik Thor's career".
The entire story and their apology is true, but they said it in an email not a tweet.
You still have no intercoder/interrater reliability. Pretty sure you don’t understand it. They have it. You need more than two raters, but yes this is how a lot of behavioral research works. What is your degree in this field?
Sorry but OP was iffy to me but I've enjoyed their perspective
HAHAHAH everyone loses all respect from me when makes fake tweet thumbnails
The gist is true though, they did apologize. 🙃
I watched the video and what I hear is that you made a 12 minute video signal boosting the response of other people. And gave reasons why other people think it is gets harder to validate their claims. I understand the concern as they also provide paid services.
But as a blatant comparison please take into consideration how what Dave did was unfounded for years for the mbti system as now we have clear definitions of the functions, the OPS functions.
While if you look at socionics or even to a scientist Dario Nardi, who takes the whole function thing very softly; you can see at least now we have one more interpretation useful.
But I understand as I'm an intp and a little too self aware, so I understand where I'm going from might be alien to people who think about the system and its use more pragmaticaly, and less as an addition to their knowledge.
I watched the video and what I hear is that you made a 12 minute video signal boosting the response of other people. And gave reasons why other people think it is gets harder to validate their claims. I understand the concern as they also provide paid services.
But as a blatant comparison please take into consideration how what Dave did was unfounded for years for the mbti system as now we have clear definitions of the functions, the OPS functions.
While if you look at socionics or even to a scientist Dario Nardi, who takes the whole function thing very softly; you can see at least now we have one more interpretation useful.
But I understand as I'm an intp and a little too self aware, so I understand where I'm going from might be alien to people who think about the system and its use more pragmaticaly, and less as an addition to their knowledge.
In a sense objective doesn't work for me because I understand the system and think about it. But I am the last person to try to match the coins perfectly. But as Dave goes on about the main thing is to grow.
Like if I would miss type myself but me seeing idk an Ni on the top and would try to compensate for demon Se. It might still benefit my life one way or another.
Of course I understand what I am saying I use a knife as a toothpick haha
@@ferenccsenkey3343 I'm curious what you perceive to be the clear definition of the OPS functions? Do you mean things like Ti = self reasons, or 'what works for me" as being the clear definitions?
They should rename it from OPS to AAOPS. Aiming at objective personality. lol
I lost respect when they were literally crying about George Floyd's death lol
"both redheads both lesbians" Nordic example ftw😅
Wow. This is an interesting turn of events...
Wild times!!!