eric is not critic guy , true critic see both good side and bad side , eric say no to anything and tell all people they are mistyped themselves and that is joke in it self .
@Mr. Spaghetti are you trying to start a debate here? What exactly is your point? That peer review should not be done or that it has no purpose. I won't engage in irrelevant conversation. The point remains that peer evaluation and critique is essential. How it should be done is a different story. But its value is still recognized.
@@ijmimi9186 Peer-review is a good idea in theory, but in practice peer-reviewed stuff is barely any better than non-peer-reviewed stuff. All it really does is take the typos out of academic works, and give the public false impressions of objectivity. Edit: I don't think this comment harsh enough. Peer review is just a gate-keeping process to weed out any research that people with vested interests dislike. It's anti-truth, anti-objectivity, anti-science, etc.
Th conclusion of this video is. Dave got what he want, not caring about the critics and focusing on his bigger picture goals. Eric got what he want and that was the perception that he is “right” and “won” the argument.
"winning" is everything in science and logic. it doesn't matter if the person "wanted" to win. and when you insert there a word like "perception" you gotta explain why if you don't want to look like intelectually dishonest. which you are.
@@Corvin2696 what i meant is politeness doesn't matter, providing good arguments matters, it doesn't matter if delivery is brutal. did you read my second sentence above? cause it's the key sentence where i elaborate what i mean. but morons like u need so many more explanations i guess.
@@Corvin2696 read: " it doesn't matter if the person "wanted" to win." which is the key sentence. there are only few sentences there. that's the second one. process what u read too.
The Te - Ti clash is very clear here, and Dave is very ok with this but Eric clearly are not willing to accept a different approach. Anyway you did a good job Binyamin, Thanks.
One of my favorite videos EVER across the personality youtube community. We need soooooo many more of these, and not just system against system, but understanding of functions and function stacks against each other. We can only grow in understanding as a community from this type of give and take. Well done and thank you, and more please!!! ♡♡♡
#twfpRepresent 😂 I've been fan of both Eric and Dave for a while now, so happy to see this video uploaded! Looking forward to more content like this :)
I didn’t see this as a debate, but more of a conversation about what’s expected from the science community for typology to be accepted. Type is playing a bit of a role here. DSP is actually trying to do something (J) while Eric is providing great arguments and ideas (P). Over all the collective unconscious of the NT temperament playing out.
If what you're tracking ends up leading to distinct groups, tending to show similar looks, similar life experiences, etc. that's a very strong indicator that you're on to something. Also, as far as I can tell from modern-day IQ tests, the argument that IQ is somehow skewed and just shows who's better at taking tests is completely incorrect. Modern tests are not measuring knowledge and don't require the need to speak a certain language. It is all abstract and totally randomized. It is quite possibly the most reliable finding in all of the social sciences. To simply shrug off IQ is to have an opinion about it with only a subjectively acquired quote to back it up. It is very apparent how these two are so different as far as their type just by their goals and ideas of what is important. I'm heavy on the Ni so I tend to see Dave's approach as more straightforward and scientific and have a difficult time following Eric's model.
same. I also agree with Dave's approach. We need to see real life correlation first, and that's the boundary where ideas can be systemized consistently and definitions made.
This interview highlights the functions in clear display. DSP Ni seems to be groping in the dark for a future truth. While Host Eric Si is pulling actual personal data from trail and error to solidify a working system right now. DSP Te is systematic while Host Eric Fe is libertarian. DSP Fi is idealistic while Host Eric Ti is objective truth seeking and critical.Great job on all sides!!!
I disagree that DSP is groping in the dark. It is obvious they are finding distinct groupings that show strong (maybe the strongest) indications that type is determined by DNA and is molded by experience and possibly, epigenetics. Ni isn't in la-la land when it measures the forest and the big picture. If they can gather enough data, the details start to appear without having to do as much trial and error. After they are apparent within their respective groupings, they will be way easier to identify and recognize, pattern-wise. This will also be beneficial in fleshing out more accurate terms and definitions. I get that you disagree with Dave's thinking, but perhaps this is due to not grasping how Ni/Te can be incredibly objective but from a completely different angle.
28:06 Eric your content is terrible to navigate through and sit through. That's why not many people are listening. Your arguments may be well put together but the presentation isn't. Which makes it seem like your argumentation is irrelevant.
Yup. I'd love to learn more about Eric's system. But I can't figure out what he does since he doesn't ever seem to explain exactly what he's doing, certainly not in any consumable way.
Uh it's more like the opposite. The vast majority of videos on MBTI/typology online are neatly presented but full of dogshit that's basically repeated truisms across the "community". A strange sort of pseudoscience. The thing about pseudoscience is that it always appeals to (poorly/misunderstood) data to give itself a semblance of credibility. But typology doesn't need data, it needs to make sense as a framework. Since that's what it is.
I think the debate ultimately boils down to: DSP cares more about behavioral displays, and isn’t worried about the mechanistic reasons that cause these variations. He thinks that part will take care of itself eventually. He’s just worried about getting consistent test results so that he can appear ‘objective’ and ‘scientific.’ Also, might be kind of cynical to say, let’s not forget he is a business man. Eric cares more about providing a mechanistic understanding of cognitive functions. He’s not worried about explaining every single difference in the way human personalities display, rather he’s just trying to taxonomy human attentional manners. The problem with DSP is he’s getting lost in this sort of typology intersectionality that has no Ti constraints. For example, I could take 50,000 INTPs and if I analyze them thoroughly enough I could separate them into 5 subgroups. Then I could split those subgroups into 5 more, and five more, and so on. Without these sort of Ti constraints Eric is pushing for, DSP’s system will just keep expanding until he has like 50,738,029 different personality types. Also, without having solid, consistent definitions of his functions, he doesn’t really have any idea what it is he’s testing for/trying to prove. If I can reliably type ESFPs as INTJs 100% of the time, it doesn’t negate the fact that they are actually ESFPs. That’s why we should be focusing on understanding attentional matters first and foremost, instead of variance in behavioral displays.
The thing is, OP system works because Dave and Shan agreed on the exact definition of functions and therefore they do get consistent results when they type the same person individually. If we agreed what exactly a golden retriever is and what it is not, we can objectively type golden retrievers. It's just that we had a previous agreement on what certain terms mean. It doesn't automatically mean those interpretations are correct. You just learn THE DEFINITION and repeat. ^^^ Andrés got some points.
@Jolie I think Dave and Shanon are definitely onto something, and I think that their work can be of value. My problem is basically this: it doesn’t matter if the tests are consistent if they can’t explain exactly what they’re testing for. If I think green is blue, I might be able to identify ‘blue’ consistently, but in actuality ‘blue’ is still green. Because of his Te/Se bias he’s focusing too much on behavioral displays instead of the underlying mechanisms that cause these differences in displays. Dave needs to hire a strong Ti user, or actually give some of Eric’s ideas a chance, because then he could paint a fuller picture. Eric’s system is one of the best mechanistic models of human modes of attentions that I’ve ever seen. I disagree with him on some small things, but overall I think he’s got the best system in the community. The problem is he isn’t really making use of it. Because of his Ne/Ti bias he’s creating systems just for the sake of it. He needs a Ni/Te user to help him present his stuff and find ways to apply it in the real world. It basically boils down to: Eric is building a linguistic taxonomy to give us the language that allows us to understand the inner workings of the human mind. Dave is trying to categorize all the different ways people display in the real world (Se) by comparing and contrasting them to others. It’s kind of like with the big five or something: if you score 80% on openness it doesn’t say anything about the actual mechanistic reasons for this, just that in relation to other people you seem to be display more ‘openness’ than the average person. I think combining Dave’s approach with a more sophisticated cognitive functions model like Eric’s would paint a much fuller picture. I think ultimately which approach you prefer is indicative of your own functions biases. Te/Se users are gonna think Dave’s system is way more useful. And Ti/Si users are gonna find Eric’s more ‘correct’ and ‘insightful.’ But if we really want typology to progress we need to acknowledge the value in both
@Wolfhound you’re right, Eric did come across very snarky in this clip. It’s his PoLR Fi, sometimes he can seem like a teenager throwing a tantrum. Lol. He really should’ve eased off a bit and approached this more like a conversation than a debate that he needed to ‘win.’ Anyway, with that said, I think you’re wrong that he can’t explain anything in normal language to newbies. Eric’s biggest weakness is his sloppy presentation, but if you dig around a bit (check out his documents on his blog) you’ll see his system is actually pretty simple and intuitive. For example, let me explain Ti vs Fi in Eric’s model: Fi: interested calculus. “What do I want to happen?” “How do I feel about this?” “What do I want to stand for?” Ti: disinterest calculus. “Removing my own subjective feelings on the matter, what is the most ‘reasonable’ or ‘fair’ way to address this issue?” So one can only consciously prioritize one of the two. Obviously sometimes Ti users make decisions based on their own values/feelings, and sometimes Fi users will evaluate things from a neutral perspective. If you’re evaluating something using a disinterested perspective, it logically follows you cannot also be evaluating it based on your own subjective feelings/values/wants at the same time. Sure, you can do them one after the other, but it’s all about discovering which one of these is a persons instinctual response to a situation.
The problem is that it is not that complicated to the get the same results each time, but it is more complicated to get the same results and *be correct* in the outcome too. However, since 'science' can not test what is even a right outcome in typology, Dave as a consequence does not seem to focus on being right, but rather solely on being consistant in his outcomes by trying to create a consistant testing method. So what seems to be happening is that if he consistantly tests a group of ESFP's as INTJ, then that's a consistant result and he's happy with it - because that's all that science asks for. So by merely "being consistant in testing" one is actually not really helping typology any further if it's not correct what one is testing in the first place. For example: If one were to create a test where the testing method was to look at the length of hair to determine gender in humans, then indeed the results would be consistant if multiple people performed the tests. However, it does not make it the right theory to begin with. After all, if no one can verify if one has correctly tested these humans as female or male, the test does *seems* good from a purely science-testing sort of viewpoint. However, it's still wrong because the theory behind the idea of taking hair length to determine gender it is poor. So trying to push forward using the the incorrect idea thair length of hair is a right way to measure gender is actually not helping the community any further, because it's based on poor fundaments. It's better to first get the fundaments right and work on a testing method after that, rather than just start testing 'something' while it's even unclear what you're really testing. On itself creating a testing method that is consistant but not nessisarily correct is not a bad thing, if the people who buy into the system are aware of this. However, if they're not and assume that by being consistant it is also corrrect, then they basically become misinformed. After all, by throwing the words 'science' and 'objective' in there the whole time likely gives a lot of people the impression that it's also indeed true, because people often associate 'science' and 'objective' with 'truth' .If that is the case, then the question is whether DSP's system is actually helping the community. After all, it's better if people are uncertain of their type or other people's type if it's indeed contains a level of uncertainty in reality, rather to feel certain about a type that' is not a certainty at all.
Dave´s data can at least support a system like Eric´s. Such datasets can serve for check ups of consistency and provide additional methods to such system. As far as I see Dave has no system per se, he makes statistic analysis, so I agree. The objectivity will come when Eric´s system runs over the data of Dave.
@potato psoas i agree patterns on themselves are interesting indeed. They could be valuable, if they indeed provide information that is indeed actually objective. I have not seen any real cases of his patterns though, but I'm sure there are patterns, as I believe there are patterns in anything (at least I strongly believe so). I just hope he indeed has these patterns he claims he has, because with him I'm never really sure if these claims he makes are genuine or marketing to sell his "product".
Your comment has merit, but you spell consistent and consistently wrong over and over and for that reason...I'm out! Lol, jk, jk, good reasoning here. I love that a discussion has been started hopefully there will be many more to follow. ♡
Exactly. What is does offer possibly is where you stand in relation to others, since there is consistency. That is if the typing is solely based on behavior patterns and not biased by things like visual typing. But in terms of self growth it's a little difficult if in fact Dave is the one tying you upside down. I really like their animals though and feel like those are pretty simple basic concepts that are easy to track in reality. I almost feel like they could create their own independent system.
The IQ analogy seems like a weak analogy for “debate”, Eric. I believe both people, Eric and Dave, are attempting to communicate something different. Though, it seems Eric is attempting to prove something empirical based on his own theory of how these “rules” work... sort of a physics of cognitive science... Meanwhile, @davesuperpowers seems to be attempting to collect data in a consistent and reality-based observational manner in which other people can collect the same types of data. From there it seems Dave is working to distill the consistent patterns (beyond simply correlative connections, as IQ has been misused) to something reality based. Or as Eric may have called it, displays (of behavior) I think Eric is trying to add to the typing conversation by being competitive of other systems and taking his theory he has evolved as a method of validating it against those systems. The problem I see with that is Eric’s approach may be short sighted and limited to Eric’s subjective understanding right now. I feel his definitions need to be more concisely understood without providing so many false analogies and straw men arguments to discredit other systems - as a means to validate his. I believe his philosophy of building absolute truths (rules) of the cognitive functions and WHY they work as they do is right on. But I believe he may want to focus more on streamlining his definitions so that they may be more consistently and accurately applied by other parties. If everyone can be as right as Eric thinks his system is, then the entire community will benefit. But if it remains to be that Eric himself must be right, then it may lose sight of a more objective truth. Comparing that to Dave, I don’t think he cares so much about being right as he does being consistently accurate when trying to type within a particular model. This would allow other citizen scientists and if Dave’s plan is right, eventual “real” scientists to take the model and attempt to break it or scale it - abs ultimately tie it to something more “scientifically sound” such as genetic code. I think if Eric can take this approach to proving and scaling his model/theories, it will validate his understanding of the prime/core factors within his “arguments”. Meanwhile, I think Dave would do better with someone who is much stronger on the Si (detail) stuff who can better organize and whittle away at the patterns to their core elements. Creating less subjective definitions that people like Eric can either challenge or support. Until then each is having a different drive and end goal... as such, a true debate is not possible - as they would both be “right” or “wrong” about different things
I told Dave a while back that if he's not finding what he thinks he's finding...he's finding something for sure. He's definitely uncovering pattens. One area I think he's really nailed down is the Self/Tribe and Control/Chaos temperaments. Dave and Eric typed me differently but both typed me as ExxJs. I think OP is definitely nailing the temperaments. Philosophers have grouped personality types in 4 broad groups sine Hippocrates in 360 BC.
@@Im_alex_h By running some tests outside of your head might be a good place to start, but gee i dunno, it's not like scientists have established that centuries ago.
What a weird vibe in this video. DSP is very unmovable, as he doesn’t react to Eric’s valid challenges. You get the sense that DSP feels a certain way underneath but he’s a master of now showing it. That being said Eric raised great points here that no one could really argue with him on, at least successfully. There has to be more dialogue between people who run different systems if we’re ever to come to an understanding. DSP needs to converse with Eric who needs to converse with CS Joesph etc. If everyone stays segregated, true understanding will be hard to attain.
@@TheLategates If Eric was actually critiquing anything about Dave that is not about typology , then maybe one could argue it's a "personal attack". However, the subject of typing correctly is also part of the typology subject they're discussing. Also, Eric does not make a judgement about whether INTJ or ENTJ is 'bettter' or 'worse' to be, yet merely tries to point out why Dave's typing is incorrect. If 2 hair stylists have a discussion about what the name is of a certain color, and one of them uses the others hair to give an example where the other fails to adequately catagorize the color, then that is not a personal attack either.
Dave was more than happy to conclude the video rather than ask anymore more questions as he believes in his vision and isn’t really caught up in the my theory beats your theory argument. Eric is definitely knowledgeable but definitely comes of a bit douchebaggy but the point of the video was to somewhat counter critique one another by Dave wasn’t having none of it! 😂 absolutely comedy and a gem for the history books of how types play out animalistic-ally.
I think the biggest problem is that all the different systems use the same terminology of mbti, but define them differently. When you look at a model (Dave's, Eric's or even csj) you need to shutdown the assosiation of other systems. It would only make sense to get a different type when you use another system wich is defined differently. Just check how the system defines the type that you get and if it makes sense of it's own context.
Not shut down the association of other systems, just hold them loosely. When I'm studying Spanish, I can see the connection between words like "voto" and "vote". I just have to be careful not to assume connections between words like "embarrassed" and "embarazada" (pregnant).
The problem is everyone especially on you tube has their own interpretation of typology & no one seems to agree whereas if you read the literature the systems are still connected together under one structure typology.
Also side note: Dave = Breadth - Numbers tells the story and airs out inconsistencies Eric = Depth - Mechanism tells the story and airs out inconsistencies Hence the difference in their approaches to typing and attempting to comprehend typological models
I think the difference is more about where they get their ideas from. Dave gets it from patterns in reality. Eric gets it from self ideation about the theory.
It's all about (behavioral) 'displays' vs. (cognitive) 'functions'. Whichever one you believe to be the legitimate foundation for type is the person who you'll follow. It begins and ends right there.
One possibility I’ve considered is that perhaps DSP knows he isn’t talking about the cognitive functions. His taxonomy is one of tribe vs self and organize vs gather. It may have some carryover but it really is quite different on a fundamental level. If he was more honest he would not use the four letters and he would not use the same names as MBTI for his functions. But at the end of the day Dave is a businessman. He’s knows the four letters and the MBTI function names are where the money is at. It’s a great financial move on his part, although certainly dishonest. As for the name “objective personality” ya it’s dumb. But I’d compare it to Budweiser calling themselves the “King of Beers” Is this true? Hell no!!! But it’s marketing 101. Dave probably knows it’s a douchey name 😂
Haven't considered this idea before. Yeah, makes a lot of sense. And I did wonder why one wouldn't just make up new terms. Maybe hurting INFP feelings is fun to some sadists 😶 But I wouldn't blame Dave either if this was the case. We're all left to our own critical thinking. And I side with a lot of what both of them said here. Only not Dave being an ENTJ 😂 (I promise I'm gonna read into socionics one day. One day, slowy, cause I guess I'm consume last 😅 I prefer my new input to be about the same stuff I've been thinking about for months)
Indeed I agree it's just business and him using the mbti words to attract people and gather subscribers (aka customers). I strongly have my doubst about Dave's 'long term goals' too (like linking stuff to genes etc). Sure, I could see it being possible, but I have have serious doubts if Dave has any intentions than just promising stuff and earning money from this. I believe "goal" of 'progress in science" all nothing more than some marketing story to give his system a good image and make it seem credible, like they're soo 'science' and 'objective' and so on. These words are repeated more often than "amazing" on tell-sell shows. In his videos he often tries hard to make anyone feel inadequate in typing, only to sell them a solution next (which is being his customer). He tries to sell people the idea that they're most likely 100% wrong in their typing, which means he says an INTP will most likely think they're an ESFJ (the exact opposite in function order). Of course no one in reality has ever seen an intp think they're an ESFJ, but that's another story.... Basically the same idea as first making people fear something, and sell them the solution next (like some virus scanners free versions claiming to detect non existant "oh so dangerous mallware", only to sell you their full version next).
@@PowerRedBullTypology His CZcams channel isn't monetized. He was making great money from his RC business before he passed it off to someone else. I really think he believes in his system and what he is doing. But yes, he needs to get paid to keep doing it somehow.
@@Binyamin.Tsadik I did not mean that his channel on itself makes money via youtube, but rather that it's marketing for his typing business, which is really the business, rather than a passion of a person that possibly makes (some) money as a consequence. I think it's set up the way he has it set up, so that he and his partner can later just relax and sit back, while other people type their customers and they get somewhat "passive" income. It's good business model of course, but of obviously when something is set up as a business that way, the business part will always be that it has to make money first. If it does not make money, he has no income. If he would start to doubt his system, he can not take a break from it and do it all over, because in the meantime he has no income anymore.
P O W E R - R E D - B U L L Eric also is in the business of typing people, that’s why he’s going so hard in trying to make his model seem absolutely objective, business is business.
I've always said that Eric has a hard time communicating to others (I'm not negating that there doesn't exist at least one person who understands him). I'm not sure why, but it's clearly showing in this interaction. I've always wondered if he's communicating for himself or communicating for others. Bin I love how you moderated and I think you should've made Eric explain himself more by asking questions to things that may not be clear. To get to the root of what his thoughts are and why he decided to bring into whatever domain he's talking about. Same for Dave.
Thanks for the feedback, I'll try to do this more in the future. I was able to follow most of what was going on, but I need to think of the audience too.
23:30 Even if he could remember the fights in detail no man with any good sense or self preservation is going to reveal that information publicly in that context. That was a dirty move.
Why is it so Eric v Dave, from Eric’s perspective? Eric’s identity is so tied into this and Dave is so chill. Eric appears so ego driven to be “Correct”, where as Dave is like “Yeah we got this system and data were getting is interesting”
@Jonathan Nott everything is ego driven in the sense that every action you take is in service of the self. It doesn’t matter what either of their motives are when it comes to evaluating who has the more correct model. DSP can’t even provide any explanations of the mechanisms that aren’t entirely circular, whereas Eric’s model (from what I’ve seen) is pretty much completely logically consistent within itself, so he’s right to not give Dave any ground. Eric says ‘the best thing for your model is to have it be attacked’ and he holds himself to that. Dave is all about being ‘scientific’ but this is the first time I’ve ever seen him engage with any of his critics, but Eric has always welcomed debate on his platform.
Alexander Hansen He wasn’t referring to their models but the temperament they displayed, in which he’s correct. Eric has an ego and is incredibly concerned about being “right” with no end goal.
Interesting talk! The dynamic approach is very good. It goes down to the ever changing reality and it´s fluidity. It has potential to replicate the actual state in (probably almost) realtime and full detail; as well to display and simulate it. A good bethought and hardened taxonomy is inevitable to build a reliable running system that finally refines itself. Just like with every dynamic system nowadays. I see the data Dave is gathering being fed into the system of Eric one day. This way e.g. a simulation might be given a "face" and the system can evaluate statistic correlations from the broad datasets. Good work guys! I would like to see Eric Strauss and Ben Vaserlan in a talk together someday as well.
Eric - " There is nothing smaller than particles..., but that's all you got... that's it, that is the firm limit, it doesn't go down any further." Ah right again I see. He's got this really odd black and white mindset... where whatever comes out of his mouth (in his mindset) is factually "right".
Eric - you did Dave dirty dawg... real dirty!! I think you had that question planned ahead of time (asking him about his most recent fight). Then, you ended the conversation while you still had the upper hand 🖐🏿 The people deserve to see a rematch!!! 😅 Great discussion, though!
If find it very interesting how Host Eric and Dave Super Powers are different. Like DSP actually offers something for the tribe while Eric is critiquing quite a lot but does not offer anything substantial for the tribe.
Sure but I'm just saying the language and what they focus on seems, from my perspective at least, to highlight Ni vs Ne differences and Te vs Ti differences. I have a foot in each world (having Ni&Ti) so I can personally see where each have some blind spots (as I do with Ne & Te).
@Cliven Longsight I’d like to challenge your suggestion that ENTJ’s are confident.I realize that the word confidence can mean a lot of things and manifest in different ways. This is how I see it... Extroverted confidence would be (for example) being able to speak in public or be “extroverted”. And yes, ENTJ’s should naturally be good at those types of things which are associated with confidence. But internal confidence is being in touch with one’s own personal values, and having strong solid convictions about “what’s right for me” and not having a need for approval from other people. So just to clarify, in this context I’m referring to internal confidence. With that out of the way I will start by suggesting that all ExxJ’s by nature are not confident. All ExxJ’s have a lead extroverted decider function (Te or Fe). The extroverted decider function can come across as confident especially if it’s masculine, but here’s why it’s not confident. If you have Te or Fe first, you’ll have Fi or Ti last which means your own identity is weak as fuck!! Because of the Lead De you will have a huge need for tribe validation which may manifest by constantly trying to solve other people’s problems, proactively interacting with the tribe, pinging off the tribe, controlling the tribe, giving to the tribe, anything to get tribe validation. The human need for tribe validation will manifest in many ways depending on if you have Te/Ni, Te/Si, Te/Ne, Te/Se, Fe/Ni, Fe/Si, Fe/Ne, Fe/Se. But all ExxJ’s have that need for validation which will be their biggest struggle in life. So ExxJ’s are the least confident types because they struggle the most with having confidence in they’re own identity. They will often appear confident on the outside because of the strong extroverted Decider (Fe or Te) but they’re weak and not confident on the inside because of the weak introverted decider (Fi or Ti). The ExxJ’s will use external confidence as a facade to hide their lack of confidence on the inside. So the most “confident” types are IxxP’s. They know their own values and are incredibly secure in themselves, they know what they want and don’t need any tribe validation and will often reject tribe validation because they are totally confident in who they are, what they want, and what they value. The IxxP’s problems would be over confidence in themselves and not being able to see other people’s values. Because they have a strong introverted decider (Fi or Ti) they have a weak extroverted decider (Fe or Te). So they’re not aware and don’t naturally care about other people’s opinions and values and so they don’t feel the need for tribe validation. Which makes them the most confident types. But like I said in the beginning, the word confidence can mean a lot of things and manifest in different ways.
NiTe Dave "Here's all these truths about everyone, there's a pattern, I'm following the pattern" NeTi Eric "Here's what I know to be true, now I need to find the pattern that supports me" That's how I see it anyway.
The “computer model” method that Eric describes is widely used in science. It is essentially a model that, given inputs representing someone who is assumed to be a certain type, would accurately predict that type. Perhaps the input is text written by that person, or a voice recording, or a combination of these or other factors. The only caveat is the fact that the ground truth about anyone’s type is technically unknown, because type is a construct. That’s why we must assume people are of a certain type in order to be able to test the model. That’s why DSP’s method, which consists of having multiple parties guess one person’s type, is a good way to overcome this issue, since a majority vote would indicate that the model is at least better than random.
I'm not sure this is what Eric said. I had trouble understanding this part, but what I got: He wants to create a simulation where the cognitive function will be represented by the computer. And in some way, they will fight and if the scene is a Fi scene, the represented Fi instance should win. There is no human input I think, only a way to define that functions are an actual thing.
Ricardo Cardo yeah I think you’re right. The thing I suggested is more something I’ve had on my mind lately... I think his model would probably take in some “event”/stimuli as input and see if the computer would correctly simulate what someone of a given type would do.
I think 40 minutes isn't long enough for a general discussion between these two (although it's better than nothing, which is what most people would have expected before Binyamin made it happen). I've checked out Eric's channel and heard him say that 'jumpers' don't exist. Would have liked to see them debate that specific point in depth given how central it is to Dave's model.
24:00 Seems a little too easy to say that anyone who doesn't snap volunteer a specific memory has PoLR Si, aka 7Si. Why not 8Si? Also buried in the unconscious and lines up with Dave's self-type as NiFi (INTJ jumper).
Confirmation bias is the nemesis of it all. No matter which system you want to apply. If you _want_ to apply it, you're prone to bias. We notice one little bit of what someone says, even if to anyone else it may be insignificant - and we zoom in on it, disregarding other indicators. We may even stop noticing the strong Te within the supposed Ti user, as we're unconcsiously only looking for Ti and Fe. So Dave has got a point with the scientific method. If you set up simple definitions that can not be misinterpreted, people can agree easier. And they may still be wrong. But the chance of being right is significantly higher if you consistently agree. If you always disagree, what's even the point of it? It will stay arbitrary. Even if you disagree with his terms, you can use the same method to track type according to which definitions you consider true. Set up two people who independently from each other watch the same thing and see how it plays out. 🤔 Results are still up for debate afterwards. Truth usually wins the long haul.
@@Im_alex_h I'd agree with neither. Dave makes it as simple as it gets in his binary coin approach. "It can only be this or that, don't overthink it". It doesn't really get more simple than that.
@Someone Random example, Dave says (if I remember correctly) Ti: what works for me Fi: personal truth Can you actually explain to me why that is different? How do I know when I’m using Ti vs Fi? Compare this to Eric’s, Ti: disinterested calculus Fi: interested calculus If I am using a disinterested calculus I necessarily cannot be applying an interested calculus; I cannot be thinking both ‘what is fair or more truthful?’ and ‘what do I want to happen/feel better about?’ at the same time. I can do one after the other, but it logically follow that you cannot think about something objectively and subjectively at the same time. Eric’s framework is actually pretty simple, it’s just his presentation sucks. I suggest looking at his google docs stuff on his blog.
@@Im_alex_h T - judging information based on what works F - judging information based on what is valued i - by/for me e - by/for everyone Put it together and you have Ti, Fi, Te and Fe. That is one step out of a whole bunch. And added up it seems more complicated. That's the sum of it. If you concern yourself with one binary coin at a time, it really shouldn't be. I agree that if you break it down, Eric's definitions are simple, too.
@@Im_alex_h And, to maybe prove your point, I can't really explain the difference right now without making it more complicated than the definitions. If you view things by my understanding of Dave's measures, you could see an FP type getting triggered when other people do things that the FP doesn't value - and it doesn't even seem to have tribe reason. The TP would be triggered by things that do not make sense to them which the tribe also does not value. It is about your own rational reasoning + the tribe's value for Ti. And it is about your own values + tribe efficiency for Fi.
I find myself wondering if this Si question would have yielded different results if Eric had asked Dave about things rather than people. I can't remember the last fight I had, despite being pretty confrontational. But I can remember the last time I got mad at an Object. A can of soda fell on my foot when I opened the refrigerator.
Thank you for this video, I couldn't believe it when I saw it! It made me laugh a few times. I have been working to be self taught with Objective Personality Typing because it was the first one I came across that sorted temperaments into logical order and not based on dated archetypes that have ambiguous interpretation such as "Guardian" "Artisan" etc. That also means I think Metaphysical plane, physical plane seems a bit impractical. I thought the point of all this typing stuff was so we could learn to interact more effectively and work together for the betterment of the species?
How did I miss this when it happened? It was around when I was watching Eric's TypePolice vids for fun that I started discovering DaveSuperPowers' og material and got sucked into the OPS vortex. Now, two years later, I am OP typed and I really think Shannon and Dave nailed my 512 type!
If in OP two (or many) separated typologists start from an inaccurate definition for a function, that both agreed on beforehand, they will probably get the same results consistently anyway, but they might not label the to be observed phenomenons correctly. Its a wrong idea of what objectivity is made of.
You need a database of challenges, human situations, problems, then a way to measure how the subject approaches, solves, or fails to solve and correlate that with the cognitive functions and how the CF’s state a type will approach, solve, etc.
Interesting interaction though it seems that DSP came at it from an angle of not really challenging or debating Eric. No doubt it was for strategic purposes and in fact Binyamin seemed to give Eric more intellectual push back as well as raising some valid points in the potential flaws in his thinking. It would have been nice to hear what DSP truly thinks and it makes me wonder if the reason for coming on was more of a placation thing.
The way I see it, they both seek different goal using same tools, then they debate whether the other use them correctly or not. I've seen OPS website. I know their ultimate aim. They try to be scientific like Big Five. They simply want validity, not holistic explanations of everything, which is what typology including MBTI do, and they often fail horribly at that. I find OPS very useful and a noble goal, but that doesn't mean that it cannot be criticized. Nothing is holy. If anything, OPS really need Ti in their team.
I’m glad you got some (more) resolution by both guys, ultimately typing you as ISTP. I understand now what you were doing by somewhat pitting them against each other. You were looking for truth, which is exactly what Ti Doms do. Good channel, Binyamin.
That´s a legit comment. Just they both are operating on living humans, so there is indeed the cultural and environmental influence included. They should however always be aware to keep that in mind in future as well, to not make it to a static system.
The difference in the perceiving axis is explicit here (although their goals are similar.) Personality theory needs the additions of both if it wants to reach the entire audience I'd assume.
The first time I take the mbti on a website I didn’t care much except the fact that I resonate a lot with the description of the type. But for some reason I return to retest 2 weeks later and I got one letter differently from previous type. From there I was super interested and dive into cog functions. It was surprising that they would identify somebody personality with only 4 différents parts (s,n,t,f) and I was wondering if they’re were more than those 4. After 2 years now of spending time learning Cog fun (Eric, op), enneagram , socionics, Carl Jung, général psychology, I think there are only 8cog f even tho we have more patterns but not in that attention. I am pretty sure that to understand fully someone life and what he/she tend to those 8 functions are scarily doing a great job. The principal problems here are the lack of nuances and the false correlation. Plus people forget how experiences, DNA background (pre constitution physiologically différents) forge that too. Determinism and existentialism are ideas that resonate a lot of what cog fun are. They are a mix of both with infinite possibilities but still determine in nature. Tracking them will lead us to know society problems and bias by knowing individuals in a general over time display. We just need better writing and a define map that is touching every side of what a personality constitute (extend format of the human evolutionary experience). We need more discussions like that. DSP is great for acknowledging patterns within type but Eric is the king for definitions. And binyamin for interviewing 😋
Rewatching this video and I’m gonna say both are delusional in their own way that’s funny. Im impress by the lack of passions and only focus on science in Dave’s part. I don’t think he is confortable in the debate environnement and he doesn’t consume much lol. Eric just being smart and want to remain that way so he doesn’t explain so mister nobody know what he is talking about. He is right just within his system that doesn’t look at nurture and variance so it’s a little pattern recognition of 8 skills wooo I am right because this person can’t draw, but can jump, what a system Eric. You are right your system is true within his block, a tiny block that misrepresent some patterns (but you can’t see it cause it’s linear and static).I am happy how much I evolve on the topic. Gonna rewatch a year later lol.
The Four Globes (TFG system/my current personality system): Part 1: Innate Personality Type and projection on the 3 fundamentals humans levels (Cog, Human needs, Informational elements) = inspiration Ops, Eric and Jung Part 2: Time, culture, idéologies, éducation. The map of the environment of the individual. Epigenetics/DNA = inspiration Biology, Jordan Peterson and Humans sciences Part 3: Shadow stack, family, archetypes and structure of the psyche. The underground structure of someone minds and it’s fantasies = Jung, Cs Joseph and mythology Part 4: Map of Consciousness and Type evolution and skills= inspiration Queens Gambit and Jung All 4 Globes are interacting with each other. Some more for some specific reasons and for others différents one. Benefits: fundamentals, universals, understanding, personal growth, better individuals, better society and decisions Accuracy: Scarily explain people and their mechanisms, track innate, track transformation in generality Problems: Determinism, Age, Capability of consciousness, Science application, theory driven
Wooo been a long time. I like the fact that around each year I post something here and it is a good separation and réalisation of time. That time, this year was even more powerful so I expect to write a solid paragraph here. I see both opinions a lot more vivid now and of course it match their types wich they both seem fine to continue doing (wich is neither good or bad). So we understand how types are real and that you are déterminé a lot by default. One of the major quality of serious typology is understanding how you work mechanically and that doesn’t change. The nurture aspect is majorly the reaction of your personality. We know that by how predictable and how différents persons in family end up in different places. In my work wich I refine a lot this year and made it actually a « system », I illustrate the difference of personality, type, mixture, self and spirit. There are definitions people lack of understanding. The major importance is that type is only innate and default, personality is own type + own experience + own culture + universal (narrow down so own), mixture is the totality of innate wich is impossible in my view, and self is totality of personality wich is impossible in my view. Spirit is the self elevate to the abstract form. The pattern that never die of yourself and that exist in the abstract. Now mechanism wise we look at types and personality here wich is poorly distinguish in typology. But the majority of good typologist intuitively know that we look at types wich is inside the personality. Back to the discussion: Eric push a lot that aspect that the map is well define and the actions reactions a of a person in its process will put the individual in well arrange mechanisms that works cohesively. And Dave even tho he is not explaining so much the mechanisms (wich I would like him to do because he actually do it), he is doing the binary games of coins. The duality of isolations in a persons is what makes it verifiable and subject to analysis due to isolations. The cause and the source need to be isolate and seen for what it is at the origin wich Op has done a good job. The problem is that they poorly know the definitions haha put they got a good reference point cause they made it so simple, and they got the relations well done. The problem of relation is: is it a significant pattern to observe 1. and can it be observable correctly in a person 2. does it explain people well 3. 3. Eric work with cognitives fucntions and Ops with cognitives fucntions + human needs + animals so they have more chance of observing a wider range of patterns in people simply by the number of tools they work with. That doesn’t mean they are all significant but that they are most likely to cover more explanations of people. 2. Éric verify by testing people with tests and Ops with blind test. Eric see cognitions as matter of attention and Dave as saviors and demons energy. Now what is the optimal way of doing it ? Usage and skills ? Or energy towards functions and life pills ? I am a lot more on board with energy wich will actually display themselves in insecurity wich will most likely be a probablement of usage and skills. With time I did saw the two systems seeing something similar in terms of that but that impressions of energy for Eric push him to be sometimes wrong. So the real deal is knowing the energy. Because some people depending on phase and development will use and develop skills for fucntions that are lower. And connections fucntions to animals can get you to access more the behavioral side of things in the working in reality of fucntions dynamically in actions. Eric with his test is trying to do that but has not form definitions for functions working together except the get, receive, working wich is still individual just the cohesive of the stack order (wich I will talk later and yes it is a Ops problem). 1. This one is the one full of illusions. That’s why a lot in the world work on subjectivity, that can be with ideologies, cult, culture, your brain, etc. With a higher levels of reality explanations of psychology that can be difficult to sort out relevant informations. The ways are universals, experience and verifications aka logic, causality, methods. It’s over time that you can see that one and Intj Ivey know something is going on. The description and wisdom is probably what get people interest first and after what I mention previously. A type that can explain the most out of someone and is a copy paste to another individual of the same type is the realitistic way of dealing with something valuable. Spectrum is what we will get form doing all this job and refining those coins, duality and mechanisms. Your own subjective self cannot hide form the pools of people in this world. Compare to them you are more like that and that, etc. In this day and age it is the perfect period to see the contrast. After put it in an AI and computer to track in the data set base on speech, life pills, energy, brain waves. The entirety of the being being type wich is also a problem form our typing methods now wich is fine. In my system 1 wich is one out of 15 différents systems and spheres, I deal with typology strictly. I came to the conclusion over the year that Ops is the best system wich you can see in my paragraphs. But it has some problems wich come from animals, some dynamic and observer/decider. It is not super super significant but for making it perfect it is still a problem. In summary I put the Ops type than put a stack order in my tables of pattern, after it is in experience wich is personality (innate + experience), that’s what queen gambit is doing. So in my tables of pattern here are the highlights of Ops problems: 1. Ambivert animals 2. Animal equivalence 3. Optimistic and pessimistic fucntion 4. Stack order. Basically it is keeping some relevant typology patterns Ops has erase. 1. Ambivert animals are the first two in the stack, by default reality for individual is introvert and extrovert, Eric is right saying it should be the case for everyone to have this order. I don’t think so in terms of saviors and demons energy but that those Ambivert are still 16 personnalité verifiable and hold a pattern. That problem is not that big since op recognize the stack order is still relevant. 2. Animal equivalence is Ops saying ExxP consume is the same as IxxP consume. The only thing that sépare them is observer and decider. That is a lack of precision in the sequence. Overall it is not so much an issue but that’s need to be done for the personality (innate + experience) tracking later on in some of my sphere. Like Blast De Oi is different than Oi De. The definitions are slightly different. The decider and observer coin bring a problem to that because it is the deviding line according to Ops. 3. Optimcitc and pessimist is the flow of a type wich is the Play and Sleep (first and third fucntions of the stack). It’s the flow of the type cause Ambivert animal is more clashing by the state of the different fucntion charge. But flow is less likely savior cause it circulate. Ops are right doing savior and demons and identifying « jumpers ». The optiomistic and pessimistic are still pattern that need to be address. 4. Stack order is simply common typology knowledge of second fucntions = tool, etc. For example of all that, I put Ops type. Dave: Ni Fi SB/P(C) MF. After in the tables I put Te Ni Fi Se. We know Dave is not Ni Fi Te Se or Ni Te Fi Se because he has Ni tool and Te first dynamics. His optimistic is Te Se wich he often misinterpret has blast in himself (doing, need get job done). That bring that he is De Oi overall instead of Oi De in mixture (I look at the sequence after wich is innate + experience but still give the taste). If he is an Intj or Entj he still use Ambivert Ni Te. The last function give observer and decider. It is simple when you look at it actually but explain a lot. My last paragraph is basically my system 1. I like that the video highlight too the fact that marketing and making sense for others is a big one. Like Eric Strauss even tho in my opinion has a system that doesn’t work as well than Ops it’s still work in its block and is vastly more valuable than what he gets. And that’s simply because he is not able to deliver the informations so well in an educative process progressive way and market it poorly.
I think its on september-october 2020 that my system got a huge buff lol. Totally not what it is here. It was after that comment it seems. Insane what can happen in a span of 4 years. Some mistakes in my other more recent comment but relatively fine especially assessing the convo and Eric and Dave. My table also not that bad, I thought it was more recent tbh. Maybe I start conceptualizing it seriously around the begining of 2022. I mean the huge thing is that typology is in sphere 1-3 not globe 1 or part 1. Its interior precise and interior universal and of course its process is also on other globes and spheres, its just that it is isolate in sphere 1-3. Its very funny how things evolve rapidly in the making of my systems. I thought I was finish in september 2020 (I was at doing base structure mandala), I thought I was relatively finish in november 2021 (I was in terms of the big categories of all globes in spheres at 90% probably and mostly what my system actually is) but no hahaha I still miss the symbolic langage and some important stuff out there. Got me thinking I will never finish lol and to some degree thats very true it will continue endlessly. 2022 was a digestive year so it was rather quiet, I was writing a lot tho and I put my system aside to have some freshness and unbound realisations. Even typology got tossed away. I would say since 2021 I had relatively low realisations about typology except more people in the data and a easier time typing some people. It relatively work, because in 2023 I came back and had lots of realisations about lots of stuff including typology and I formulate my system in a more presentable fashion by testing AI stuff, writing on website. I feel bless and burden by all the realisations I have and its kind of hard. But I rely heavily on the process and the future will be quite interesting. Its an ongoing process and my stuff is not finish lol. The bird eye view is just insane now. I never thought typology would be some kind of precursor to all this. We will see how things go but yeah definitely some hard hitters. Cant wait to share. Its not something "new" lol its just that my thing will probably be a part of a movement, I dont care if my part is small or large. It will just be very useful and I hope I can help a lot. Right now I concentrate on the presentation and I know it will take lots of years, plus I am still super young. Theres a part of me that cant wait and I know it will be water down and divide. I just feel grateful and looking back its just insane.
Perfect example, at around 23 min in, of the flaw in Eric's PoLR tests. Yes, he's correct that failure to recall specific events and details from one's life is related to low Si, but that doesn't mean Si is PoLR/7th slot! How can he be so sure it's 7th slot and not 8th? He CAN'T be that sure. And since the PoLR test is so central to Eric's system, his system is bunk. EDIT: ALSO, I KNOW that Eric thinks people are actually good with their 8th slot function, but I see no evidence for that, and, again, that's why Eric's system is so flawed.
Bringing the heat Brother! Edit: Seems like Eric missed an opportunity to Respectfully articulate some of his Objectively valid points here. Instead, he lightweight chose to promote himself. Dave composed himself well. Yo... Think you can swing a Michael Pierce & CSJ addition to this particular forum in the future? *BONUS* EJArendee "resurrection." 😁
Whaaa? CSJ wouldn't come through? Hm. Trip out.. Hey, at least you put in the work though. Man, a Michael Pierce/Dave/Ben Collab would be quite *epic.*
@Jacob Sloan it wasn’t just that he couldn’t recall the date, he also couldn’t recall the specific contents of the fight. He just said “sometimes we fight about the kids...” it’s very vague. An Si user could probably give you a more detailed answer like “Cody overslept and was about to be late for the bus so Shannon said she could just drive him to school, but I said ‘no, he can just go to the bus stop right now and miss his chance to the shower because he needs to learn this life lesson,’ and she thought I was being to harsh so...” or something like that. I think this was a bad question to ask Dave in this context since he might have been holding back because he didn’t want to put his business out there, but asking questions like this is actually a fairly reliable way to test for PoLR/poor Si. Try asking something like: when you were in high school were you a nice kid or a mean kid? Person: I was nice You: can you give me an example? Si user, probably: yeah, one time I gave Becky my lunch when she forgot her lunch money. Another time I stood up to the bully that was being mean to Josh. Ni user, probably: I would help out people that were in need. I even stood up to some bullies a couple times *following up with the Ni user* You: can you tell me the name of any of those people? Or can you just explain how it went down with a bully? If they totally draw a blank and cannot recall the details for the life of them(assuming they were telling the truth), it can be pretty indicative of Si PoLR. Of course this isn’t going to be accurate 100% of the time but Eric has definitely revealed a pattern there. Host Eric has typed DSP on his channel before. This one question isn’t solely what he typed him based on, but Host Eric has gotten PoLR Te people to answer these types of questions in the same way very reliably, and Host Eric already thought he was ENTJ before he ever had the chance to try the PoLR Te question on him.
@Michelle Wilson it’s true that we can always learn more about why people display in different ways and how they personally choose to use specific functions, but that goes beyond cognitive functions. The cognitive functions model is just a linguistic taxonomy that grants us a vocabulary to talk about all the different attentional manners, it’s not supposed to be the end all be all way of understanding people. Eric’s model serves its purpose better than any other that I’ve seen people present. The functions stacks are more like archetypes, not a high resolution image of a person. Dave’s problem is he’s trying to create some all encompassing Ni framework to explain every single difference in behavioral displays. But without any Ti constraints like the ones Eric is pushing for he’s doomed to just keep having to add more and more types, because ultimately on the deepest level no two people are exactly the same and therefore no 2 people are always going to use their functions in the exact same way.
Alexander Hansen since no two people are the same on the deepest level then there’s no reason to believe Eric has the best model. Having Ti constraints limits the possibility of depth in that sense, but rather finds a better classification of the functions that contains some wiggle room so to speak.
33:40 People with higher IQ’s tend to have bigger brain to body ratios, thicker axons, be taller, have less fractal dendrite connections (the connections are more pure, ie less static), etc.
I really don’t trust someone to type others if they can’t type themselves. Him looking for objective ways is just an excuse because he’s not able to type himself through self awareness.
I'm not sure that having the Ti disinterested calculus as a function precludes you the human from engaging in an interested calculus. So having Ti doesn't forcibly result in a specific slot Fi. (Not convinced that Ti is precisely defined as a disinterested calculus)
In so far as identity is encoded in Ti or Fi, the definition of Ti as "disinterested calculus" works based on an equivocation fallacy, which consists of two different meanings of the word "disinterested". From the perspective of calculus for self engendering a subjective identity, there can logically be no disinterest because there is a motivation behind the decisions made by and for the self. Unless something is literally forced upon you, if you have a will that makes a decision, that will has an interest (which you are either aware of or you're not) which in turn biases you decision towards a particular purpose or outcome with which you subjectively identify. Ti can make "scientific disinterest" or "objectivity" its goal, but so can Fi. In fact, you see exactly this play out. On the other hand, "disinterested" as in "removed from emotional awareness" makes for a more accurate description of Ti, since it actually differentiates Ti from Fi. This meaning also leads to what you see with Ti-doms, namely that they consciously make decisions on the basis of rationality and reasons, or calculus for short, rather than trying to maximize a particular feeling/chemical response in themselves. This does not ensure that the calculus is unbiased (let alone true relative to reality), only that it is internally consistent. In other words, Ti is "interested calculus" (= "it's true if it fits into my system") while Fi is "interested feeling" (= "It's valuable if I feel positively towards it"). The extraverted deciders are going to be "disinterested" in the first sense of the word because they don't deal with the self but only with facts about and acknowledged by people: What everybody else feels/values or what they consider logical/true is not up to you and thus cannot be biased by your own interest, short-comings, or motivation. It's not a decision but a recognition of the distribution, on the one hand, and a force exerted by other people on the self, on the other hand. Hence, if anything, Te is "disinterested calculus" (=reasoning that works for more than one Ti, in absence of personal interest) while Fe is "disinterested value" (=qualities deemed important by more than one Fi, in absence of personal interest). And that's exactly what Dave's system is definitionally encoding.
Loved Eric ability to show that direct to the point question are very revealing. Same as Katherine Farvue Tr-typing system reveal how people of different enneagram lead function can be be pin pointed by words and pictures. Tying to make personal profiling into a hard science, is just so wrong on so many levels. We are already are being shape by media and the education system, to losing our individuality. We are becoming sheeple and it scare the shit out of me.
I love it. Give me an argumentationaly valid system that can produce consistent typings via the displays and Dr Nardi can throw in some brain science to check it all/ explain it at a neurological level. If only the systems didn't contradict.
Surely the best way of testing a personality system is to measure how well its working for its purpose... If MBTI is being uses for team building in a workplace, then does the system help the team? If its being used to assess a person's type then DSP's system is fair, if its being used for personal growth then does then is that being reported by those using it... I'm sure there's other ways... The problem with seeking some objective universal method is that there is no agreed measure of reality, as MBTI itself tells us. Better to tie any measure to a specific cog function and understand the limits of a given measure. The problem with both DSP and HE is they are both locked into their own cog function perspective of objectivity. It's funny really because if there's a lesson to learn from MBTI it's that two different functional perspectives are bound to be incompatible. I like both tho.
Dave's system is based on a few fundamental principles that differ tremendously from MBTI. Dave's theory is that the personality code is genetic, which changes the entire game. In genetics, there are always two binary sides to every coin. And then you have classic ideas like "For every action, there's an equal and opposite reaction”. There's an equal amount of dark and light (yin and yang). Unlike MBTI, their entire system is based on that concept. Which is where the idea of Savior/Demon functions come from. We would have two overpowered functions, and two weak functions, with two of the functions being more balanced. Two saviors and two demons. Two powerful savior functions that can only be controlled if forcefully starved to death, but also two scary, dark, demon functions that are terrified of being brought into the light and exercised. Both things have to happen to attain balance. We are biologically obligated to only do your saviors, which causes a huge imbalance in our life. Which is where our problems come from. And the scary part is if it's genetic, then by definition, we wouldn't be able to see ourselves. We're not aware of who we really are. Why is it that your family can’t see their own problems? but you can. This means your family probably sees your problems but you can’t. Which is why self typing doesn't work. The only way you can know your type is to ask people who know you well, to be honest with you about your strengths and weaknesses. I was lucky enough to have mentors in my life who gave me honest feedback on my weaknesses, and I've used that information to figure out my type. Dave also helped me figure out my type. I didn't believe it at first, I thought I was an INFJ, it turns out I'm almost the exact opposite type. The code split from 16 types to 32 types when they discovered jumpers, which means your third function can be a "savior" and your second function can be a "demon". Then they discovered the 4 animals and the masculine/feminine functions. When you combine them all, you get 512 trackable types. So most people's type doesn't exist in MBTI. For example, I'm an ESTJ, but I'm a quiet, introverted, calm, very agreeable ESTJ. Also, I tend to gather new information instead of organize known information, so I'm chaotic, not controlling. That's impossible according to MBTI because they haven't discovered the Jumpers. All ESTJ's are supposed to be Te/Si, which means all ESTJ's are controlling according to MBTI... and because MBTI hasn't discovered the animals or feminine/masculine, it thinks all ESTJ's are super extroverted, disagreeable, and dominant. But I'm not that way and I'm still an ESTJ. This is my official type FF-Te/Se PC/S(B). I'm very analytical (ST) and my biggest fear has always been what people think of me, and I'm constantly trying to solve other peoples problems which is the need for tribe validation (Te). And I'm definitely chaotic and hate to do the same thing more than once, and I always go with the facts (Se), not abstract theories. MBTI hasn't progressed since the 1950s and it's main problem is that it's completely oblivious to the concept of binary coins and how powerful the Savior/Demons are. Which is ultimately what separates MBTI from Dave's system. Dave's goal is to use the personality code for personal growth and to help people. MBTI is only interested in figuring out types for the sake of figuring out types. No one is serious about using MBTI in their own lives to objectively learn what's causing their problems and how to fix them. And even if they were there's simply too much information missing. To use the code for personal growth requires a growth mindset and recognition that 100% of your problems come from your lack of balance with your saviors/demons. I've been studying MBTI for years, and also Dave's system since he released it in early 2018. MBTI never helped me see my problems or show me how to fix them. It was a fun but useless hobby. Dave's system has helped me grow and become aware of my weaknesses, so I can take responsibility to try and get better over time. I've realized why I've struggled so much with low confidence and a weak Identity (Demon Fi). I've always been a people pleaser and I didn't even know it. Now that I can see it, it's embarrassingly obvious. I can now finally start building my own Identity. And I know why I'm very chaotic (Demon Ni). I'm always jumping to the next thing and not sticking with something long enough to complete the task. But It's been so rewarding to see myself grow in my weak areas because I now know exactly what I need to work on. And even though it's been painful to try and build my own identity and be more organized, It's so rewarding as well!
Both underlying mechanism and clean data need to correct each other in tandem. I think we already have the "general idea" about the mechanism. It's time to collect more data, so we can fix any false assumptions out of the system. If we only rely on the underlying system, there are many systems that can be created to be consistent, yet only one would be true. What's true depends on the verifiable data points.
Why do you assume only one can be true? What is your basis for truth in this context? The glass half empty, half full analogy is used to show how people perceive a specific situation but one answer is not more true than the other. The glass is both half empty and half full. So which data set is more accurate, the empty part of the glass or the full part?
@@SM-es2os that's not the right analogy. you can see an empty glass and know that it can be both half full and empty, doesn't change the underlying mechanism of how the glass is filled. 1/2 cup of water, if you will. that already implies 1/2 cup of something else. my point is, a system can be overly complicated and yet still consistent, but reality is already consistent for the most part, so you need both reason and reality check working in tandem to get things right. there is only one truth, many interpretations, and one simplest system.
and I've checked Dave's channel, he had some insights, but I think some of his talk about empiricism is just business rather than for "science community"
Using OPS I can confidently guess that Eric would have NT Sleep as a Savior (if not, then as a second animal), as well as that he is a single decider. They would call this an ISTP technically.
Why Mtbi is not scientific enough: MTBI test is so weak and SO not perfected that it literally hurts my brain. Also, it really makes no sense in relationship or pressing on any personality judgement because childhood conditioning, any old subconscious traumas and specifically attachment style of any adult PLAYS THE BIGGEST ROLE in how we behave in life, not some mtbi type. For personality big 5 makes way more sense because it is not focused on calling it a TYPE or any society polarization, or matching. Mtbi is fun, but not clean and clear enough to pin point any facts specifically, neither can predict a best match in humans, again it is not even a surface level of psychology or science.
I'm somewhat with you on that. I think that you can be the surest about a person's type once you were able to jot down their functions in the certain slots. But I personally take interaction styles with a grain of salt. I can say that it really *does* seem to be accurate 100% of the time. But it is often quite hard to settle when you don't see things super clearly, neither functions nor interaction styles. And it is hard for me to distinguish some things, as it seems to be a very floaty idea at times. The definitions are not clear either. At least, I don't perceive them as such. I gotta read into that.
This is what I like about Dave's system, btw. He makes things very, very clear and hard to misunderstand. Maybe it is a Te thing. Ti would get stuck up in details to not miss out on anything important. Te can narrow things down _to the important_ much more efficiently. Wether or not it is actual type they're tracking is a whole nother story. But I believe there is truth to it. Interaction styles and OP findings to me do not even contradict each other. People that I am certain about in what type I think they are, are people whose behaviour I can explain from within both frameworks simultaneously. Unless I got that down, I don't settle on having typed someone. I see truth in both. And I believe it might very well be different translations of the same phenomena. Once the dust settles around the differences, we can achieve a common translation to all of it - and type will be certain.
This is the problem in the psychotherapy field... everyone has got a new model! Whoopee! A new model that is all inclusive and "modern day". Now there are 100s of models quoting some dead therapist from the past. Who gives a puck!? Everyone knows it's the therapeutic relationship with the therapist being the agent of change that creates movement. So basically, if you are Eric and unlikeable, few are gonna like and understand your system. If you are Dave, and likeable, and we can understand what you are testing (i.e., measurable, reliable, relatable) than the "tribe" will eat it up. Both these guys are trying to reinvent the wheel but generally people only take a liking to one of these characters and that is who wins. Everyone can see Eric's blind spot in life problems LOL It's pretty clear. He sounds smart... but there is a simpler way of sounding smart and it requires tempering the douchiness. I'm sure Dave pokes holes in his own system and challenges it. Eric is upset because he thinks he is the only one that see's the "real" problem with Dave's method and everyone else's. I don't know... maybe his personality just rubs me the wrong way. The science community is full of purists so good luck!
Eric was pretty block headed in this one. Not sure why he was so Combative towards depth beyond his own understanding. Im not seeing much Ne there as he claims seems more like masculine Se to me.
@@Binyamin.Tsadik yeah that makes sense! He seemed to be very closed to new ideas which maybe thats just masculine Ti but I have masculine Ti as my first function and the last time I sounded as arrogant as Eric sounded was in highschool. I didnt like how he basically shut you down in favor of his own belief rather then disecting or compartmentalizing what you said and explaining why or why not he in his "opinion" thought it was differing rather then stating his opinion as fact and absolute.
Eric is so cocky and he is arguing just for sake of arguing, I hate that, Dave have a goal and want to give to people clear simple system. I don't event want to watch Eric videos because their are chaotic and too long with negative vibe and clickbait titles.
@@joyandpeacefullaughter5307 Despite Eric having by far the most robust, accurate system, it doesn't get much support because people rely on heuristics like "negative vibes" to make judgments rather than assessing the arguments themselves.
So what I have concluded from this talk is that Dario Nardi is the one that is going to save us all from this shit show of different systems. I can see a world in which both systems could be right about the type of one person but the methods in which people have a preference for typing will come into play.
As an INTP im like...screw scientific establishment, its analogues in the mainatream media, a decaying and slow moving system...move over for free market typology
@@djuradjuric7161 yes and now its being invalidated by the 2 people your watching and many many more working outside the scientific establishment. Your example of MBTI actaully proves my point as i hear bitching from those in scientific camp, but no alternatives being presented.
@@guillermoValdez369 There isn't really any bitching in scientific community. They're just pointing out that the mbti system is unreliable at best and completely misleading at worst which makes it not applicable in a grander scale. As far as new alternatives go, it's not their job to present them as much as it is to test things out to check for validity, it's what 95% of scientific research comes down to. It's very ungrateful work to say the least so you know, I think the disdain you have for them is just really silly and kinda childish.
I agree that the scientific establishment has valid criticisms of MBTI as many outside of the system do aswell. Its childish to assume that its "not the job" of scientist/researchers to create or propose alternatives to a system they criticise (your pretending you dont see the criticisms for some reason), your Ti expectations are far to low. Also weather you like it or not the scientific establishment is being left in the dust as its becomming more and more apparent that big $$ rules research. See pharma and nutrution, fitness as obvious exampels. please show me where scientists have validated the existence of extraverted intuition. Also you can perform scientific experiments withoutt the Te consensus of scientific governing bodies. The cpncensus says its ok for you to stop relying on Te and use your Ti
@@guillermoValdez369 I mean it's true what you say about pharma and all that stuff but it doesn't diminish the continuous contributions sciences have in engineering (which is a huge field of study btw), economics, military, robotics, IT, etc. Criticism of scientific community not bringing alternatives to mbti assumes that they have an obligation to do so which is in no way true, you don't have to propose something new in order to point out that something simply doesn't work. As far as your Ti/Te talk goes all i can say is that Ti can fall into making uninformed assumptions of the world which I as a Ti secondary acknowledge fully and try to take into consideration. I mean it's fine to say that you can conduct experiments on your own but you still need peer review for your findings to have any validity to them and for world to take them seriously otherwise you just have alternative science which is as viable as horoscope.
I agree with Eric. Every model should be open to critique and challenge. That is exactly how academia runs, scholars peer review one another.
"That is exactly how academia runs" Uh...
eric is not critic guy , true critic see both good side and bad side , eric say no to anything and tell all people they are mistyped themselves and that is joke in it self .
@Mr. Spaghetti Corruption is everywhere. It doesn't negate the relevance of peer review.
@Mr. Spaghetti are you trying to start a debate here? What exactly is your point? That peer review should not be done or that it has no purpose. I won't engage in irrelevant conversation. The point remains that peer evaluation and critique is essential. How it should be done is a different story. But its value is still recognized.
@@ijmimi9186 Peer-review is a good idea in theory, but in practice peer-reviewed stuff is barely any better than non-peer-reviewed stuff. All it really does is take the typos out of academic works, and give the public false impressions of objectivity.
Edit: I don't think this comment harsh enough. Peer review is just a gate-keeping process to weed out any research that people with vested interests dislike. It's anti-truth, anti-objectivity, anti-science, etc.
Th conclusion of this video is.
Dave got what he want, not caring about the critics and focusing on his bigger picture goals.
Eric got what he want and that was the perception that he is “right” and “won” the argument.
"winning" is everything in science and logic. it doesn't matter if the person "wanted" to win. and when you insert there a word like "perception" you gotta explain why if you don't want to look like intelectually dishonest. which you are.
@@demogorgon4244 In science and logic the highest value should be to uncover the truth and not to win. No idea where you got that idea from.
@@Corvin2696 what i meant is politeness doesn't matter, providing good arguments matters, it doesn't matter if delivery is brutal. did you read my second sentence above? cause it's the key sentence where i elaborate what i mean. but morons like u need so many more explanations i guess.
@@Corvin2696 read: " it doesn't matter if the person "wanted" to win." which is the key sentence. there are only few sentences there. that's the second one. process what u read too.
@@demogorgon4244 "winning" is everything in science and logic." Don't know how you wanna twist that?
The Te - Ti clash is very clear here, and Dave is very ok with this but Eric clearly are not willing to accept a different approach. Anyway you did a good job Binyamin, Thanks.
Thanks Samuel
Good job moderating that, Bin. You asked some really strong questions. Enjoyed it.
yes, very well done!
Thanks man! Appreciate it!
One of my favorite videos EVER across the personality youtube community. We need soooooo many more of these, and not just system against system, but understanding of functions and function stacks against each other. We can only grow in understanding as a community from this type of give and take. Well done and thank you, and more please!!! ♡♡♡
This is like watching your parents fight. I love both of them.
lol
This was realllllly good. Exceptional job Bin with the questions.
#twfpRepresent 😂
I've been fan of both Eric and Dave for a while now, so happy to see this video uploaded! Looking forward to more content like this :)
How can you be a fan of 2 conflicting things?
P O W E R - R E D - B U L L 😂😂😂
I didn’t see this as a debate, but more of a conversation about what’s expected from the science community for typology to be accepted.
Type is playing a bit of a role here. DSP is actually trying to do something (J) while Eric is providing great arguments and ideas (P). Over all the collective unconscious of the NT temperament playing out.
Well said fart wind ♥️😳
@@no_special_person It’s fayt wind, like fate.
If what you're tracking ends up leading to distinct groups, tending to show similar looks, similar life experiences, etc. that's a very strong indicator that you're on to something.
Also, as far as I can tell from modern-day IQ tests, the argument that IQ is somehow skewed and just shows who's better at taking tests is completely incorrect. Modern tests are not measuring knowledge and don't require the need to speak a certain language. It is all abstract and totally randomized. It is quite possibly the most reliable finding in all of the social sciences. To simply shrug off IQ is to have an opinion about it with only a subjectively acquired quote to back it up.
It is very apparent how these two are so different as far as their type just by their goals and ideas of what is important. I'm heavy on the Ni so I tend to see Dave's approach as more straightforward and scientific and have a difficult time following Eric's model.
You weren't listening to my warrant, thus your answer is non-responsive. Listen to the reason I provide, then respond to that.
same. I also agree with Dave's approach. We need to see real life correlation first, and that's the boundary where ideas can be systemized consistently and definitions made.
@@Talkingwithfamouspeople Controlling much?
This interview highlights the functions in clear display. DSP Ni seems to be groping in the dark for a future truth. While Host Eric Si is pulling actual personal data from trail and error to solidify a working system right now. DSP Te is systematic while Host Eric Fe is libertarian. DSP Fi is idealistic while Host Eric Ti is objective truth seeking and critical.Great job on all sides!!!
I disagree that DSP is groping in the dark. It is obvious they are finding distinct groupings that show strong (maybe the strongest) indications that type is determined by DNA and is molded by experience and possibly, epigenetics. Ni isn't in la-la land when it measures the forest and the big picture.
If they can gather enough data, the details start to appear without having to do as much trial and error. After they are apparent within their respective groupings, they will be way easier to identify and recognize, pattern-wise. This will also be beneficial in fleshing out more accurate terms and definitions.
I get that you disagree with Dave's thinking, but perhaps this is due to not grasping how Ni/Te can be incredibly objective but from a completely different angle.
28:06 Eric your content is terrible to navigate through and sit through. That's why not many people are listening. Your arguments may be well put together but the presentation isn't. Which makes it seem like your argumentation is irrelevant.
Yup. I'd love to learn more about Eric's system. But I can't figure out what he does since he doesn't ever seem to explain exactly what he's doing, certainly not in any consumable way.
Uh it's more like the opposite. The vast majority of videos on MBTI/typology online are neatly presented but full of dogshit that's basically repeated truisms across the "community". A strange sort of pseudoscience. The thing about pseudoscience is that it always appeals to (poorly/misunderstood) data to give itself a semblance of credibility. But typology doesn't need data, it needs to make sense as a framework. Since that's what it is.
@@Dystisis you got a lot to learn
@@_VISION. It's so funny to see why Te and Ti users "can't be friends".
@@Corvin2696 He's got Ti but it's not in the first slot lol
I think the debate ultimately boils down to:
DSP cares more about behavioral displays, and isn’t worried about the mechanistic reasons that cause these variations. He thinks that part will take care of itself eventually. He’s just worried about getting consistent test results so that he can appear ‘objective’ and ‘scientific.’ Also, might be kind of cynical to say, let’s not forget he is a business man.
Eric cares more about providing a mechanistic understanding of cognitive functions. He’s not worried about explaining every single difference in the way human personalities display, rather he’s just trying to taxonomy human attentional manners.
The problem with DSP is he’s getting lost in this sort of typology intersectionality that has no Ti constraints. For example, I could take 50,000 INTPs and if I analyze them thoroughly enough I could separate them into 5 subgroups. Then I could split those subgroups into 5 more, and five more, and so on. Without these sort of Ti constraints Eric is pushing for, DSP’s system will just keep expanding until he has like 50,738,029 different personality types. Also, without having solid, consistent definitions of his functions, he doesn’t really have any idea what it is he’s testing for/trying to prove. If I can reliably type ESFPs as INTJs 100% of the time, it doesn’t negate the fact that they are actually ESFPs. That’s why we should be focusing on understanding attentional matters first and foremost, instead of variance in behavioral displays.
DIsplay - Te, Mechanical -Ti. It's a Tx fight. I guess Eric is claiming Dave's system is a subtype system.
The thing is, OP system works because Dave and Shan agreed on the exact definition of functions and therefore they do get consistent results when they type the same person individually. If we agreed what exactly a golden retriever is and what it is not, we can objectively type golden retrievers. It's just that we had a previous agreement on what certain terms mean. It doesn't automatically mean those interpretations are correct. You just learn THE DEFINITION and repeat.
^^^ Andrés got some points.
@Jolie I think Dave and Shanon are definitely onto something, and I think that their work can be of value. My problem is basically this: it doesn’t matter if the tests are consistent if they can’t explain exactly what they’re testing for. If I think green is blue, I might be able to identify ‘blue’ consistently, but in actuality ‘blue’ is still green. Because of his Te/Se bias he’s focusing too much on behavioral displays instead of the underlying mechanisms that cause these differences in displays. Dave needs to hire a strong Ti user, or actually give some of Eric’s ideas a chance, because then he could paint a fuller picture.
Eric’s system is one of the best mechanistic models of human modes of attentions that I’ve ever seen. I disagree with him on some small things, but overall I think he’s got the best system in the community. The problem is he isn’t really making use of it. Because of his Ne/Ti bias he’s creating systems just for the sake of it. He needs a Ni/Te user to help him present his stuff and find ways to apply it in the real world.
It basically boils down to:
Eric is building a linguistic taxonomy to give us the language that allows us to understand the inner workings of the human mind.
Dave is trying to categorize all the different ways people display in the real world (Se) by comparing and contrasting them to others. It’s kind of like with the big five or something: if you score 80% on openness it doesn’t say anything about the actual mechanistic reasons for this, just that in relation to other people you seem to be display more ‘openness’ than the average person.
I think combining Dave’s approach with a more sophisticated cognitive functions model like Eric’s would paint a much fuller picture.
I think ultimately which approach you prefer is indicative of your own functions biases. Te/Se users are gonna think Dave’s system is way more useful. And Ti/Si users are gonna find Eric’s more ‘correct’ and ‘insightful.’ But if we really want typology to progress we need to acknowledge the value in both
@Wolfhound you’re right, Eric did come across very snarky in this clip. It’s his PoLR Fi, sometimes he can seem like a teenager throwing a tantrum. Lol. He really should’ve eased off a bit and approached this more like a conversation than a debate that he needed to ‘win.’
Anyway, with that said, I think you’re wrong that he can’t explain anything in normal language to newbies. Eric’s biggest weakness is his sloppy presentation, but if you dig around a bit (check out his documents on his blog) you’ll see his system is actually pretty simple and intuitive. For example, let me explain Ti vs Fi in Eric’s model:
Fi: interested calculus. “What do I want to happen?” “How do I feel about this?” “What do I want to stand for?”
Ti: disinterest calculus. “Removing my own subjective feelings on the matter, what is the most ‘reasonable’ or ‘fair’ way to address this issue?”
So one can only consciously prioritize one of the two. Obviously sometimes Ti users make decisions based on their own values/feelings, and sometimes Fi users will evaluate things from a neutral perspective.
If you’re evaluating something using a disinterested perspective, it logically follows you cannot also be evaluating it based on your own subjective feelings/values/wants at the same time. Sure, you can do them one after the other, but it’s all about discovering which one of these is a persons instinctual response to a situation.
@@Im_alex_h Well said. Love the way you explain it!
The problem is that it is not that complicated to the get the same results each time, but it is more complicated to get the same results and *be correct* in the outcome too. However, since 'science' can not test what is even a right outcome in typology, Dave as a consequence does not seem to focus on being right, but rather solely on being consistant in his outcomes by trying to create a consistant testing method. So what seems to be happening is that if he consistantly tests a group of ESFP's as INTJ, then that's a consistant result and he's happy with it - because that's all that science asks for. So by merely "being consistant in testing" one is actually not really helping typology any further if it's not correct what one is testing in the first place.
For example: If one were to create a test where the testing method was to look at the length of hair to determine gender in humans, then indeed the results would be consistant if multiple people performed the tests. However, it does not make it the right theory to begin with. After all, if no one can verify if one has correctly tested these humans as female or male, the test does *seems* good from a purely science-testing sort of viewpoint. However, it's still wrong because the theory behind the idea of taking hair length to determine gender it is poor. So trying to push forward using the the incorrect idea thair length of hair is a right way to measure gender is actually not helping the community any further, because it's based on poor fundaments. It's better to first get the fundaments right and work on a testing method after that, rather than just start testing 'something' while it's even unclear what you're really testing.
On itself creating a testing method that is consistant but not nessisarily correct is not a bad thing, if the people who buy into the system are aware of this. However, if they're not and assume that by being consistant it is also corrrect, then they basically become misinformed. After all, by throwing the words 'science' and 'objective' in there the whole time likely gives a lot of people the impression that it's also indeed true, because people often associate 'science' and 'objective' with 'truth' .If that is the case, then the question is whether DSP's system is actually helping the community. After all, it's better if people are uncertain of their type or other people's type if it's indeed contains a level of uncertainty in reality, rather to feel certain about a type that' is not a certainty at all.
Dave´s data can at least support a system like Eric´s. Such datasets can serve for check ups of consistency and provide additional methods to such system. As far as I see Dave has no system per se, he makes statistic analysis, so I agree. The objectivity will come when Eric´s system runs over the data of Dave.
@potato psoas i agree patterns on themselves are interesting indeed. They could be valuable, if they indeed provide information that is indeed actually objective. I have not seen any real cases of his patterns though, but I'm sure there are patterns, as I believe there are patterns in anything (at least I strongly believe so). I just hope he indeed has these patterns he claims he has, because with him I'm never really sure if these claims he makes are genuine or marketing to sell his "product".
Your comment has merit, but you spell consistent and consistently wrong over and over and for that reason...I'm out! Lol, jk, jk, good reasoning here. I love that a discussion has been started hopefully there will be many more to follow. ♡
@@teamsowers Oh yeah you're right about that spelling of that word (I'm dutch)
Exactly. What is does offer possibly is where you stand in relation to others, since there is consistency. That is if the typing is solely based on behavior patterns and not biased by things like visual typing. But in terms of self growth it's a little difficult if in fact Dave is the one tying you upside down. I really like their animals though and feel like those are pretty simple basic concepts that are easy to track in reality. I almost feel like they could create their own independent system.
The IQ analogy seems like a weak analogy for “debate”, Eric.
I believe both people, Eric and Dave, are attempting to communicate something different. Though, it seems Eric is attempting to prove something empirical based on his own theory of how these “rules” work... sort of a physics of cognitive science...
Meanwhile, @davesuperpowers seems to be attempting to collect data in a consistent and reality-based observational manner in which other people can collect the same types of data. From there it seems Dave is working to distill the consistent patterns (beyond simply correlative connections, as IQ has been misused) to something reality based. Or as Eric may have called it, displays (of behavior)
I think Eric is trying to add to the typing conversation by being competitive of other systems and taking his theory he has evolved as a method of validating it against those systems.
The problem I see with that is Eric’s approach may be short sighted and limited to Eric’s subjective understanding right now. I feel his definitions need to be more concisely understood without providing so many false analogies and straw men arguments to discredit other systems - as a means to validate his. I believe his philosophy of building absolute truths (rules) of the cognitive functions and WHY they work as they do is right on. But I believe he may want to focus more on streamlining his definitions so that they may be more consistently and accurately applied by other parties. If everyone can be as right as Eric thinks his system is, then the entire community will benefit. But if it remains to be that Eric himself must be right, then it may lose sight of a more objective truth.
Comparing that to Dave, I don’t think he cares so much about being right as he does being consistently accurate when trying to type within a particular model.
This would allow other citizen scientists and if Dave’s plan is right, eventual “real” scientists to take the model and attempt to break it or scale it - abs ultimately tie it to something more “scientifically sound” such as genetic code.
I think if Eric can take this approach to proving and scaling his model/theories, it will validate his understanding of the prime/core factors within his “arguments”.
Meanwhile, I think Dave would do better with someone who is much stronger on the Si (detail) stuff who can better organize and whittle away at the patterns to their core elements. Creating less subjective definitions that people like Eric can either challenge or support.
Until then each is having a different drive and end goal... as such, a true debate is not possible - as they would both be “right” or “wrong” about different things
I told Dave a while back that if he's not finding what he thinks he's finding...he's finding something for sure. He's definitely uncovering pattens. One area I think he's really nailed down is the Self/Tribe and Control/Chaos temperaments. Dave and Eric typed me differently but both typed me as ExxJs. I think OP is definitely nailing the temperaments. Philosophers have grouped personality types in 4 broad groups sine Hippocrates in 360 BC.
I’m seeing a lot of “This system I developed makes sense to me, therefore I can argue why it is correct” - Eric
@Jonathan Nott how would you decide which system is more preferable other than seeing if it can seeing if it can withstand logical scrutiny?
@@Im_alex_h
By running some tests outside of your head might be a good place to start, but gee i dunno, it's not like scientists have established that centuries ago.
@Djura Djuric so basically, you’re just saying “empiricism” in condescending manner.
@@Im_alex_h
Pretty much.
Djura Djuric 😂😂😂
What a weird vibe in this video. DSP is very unmovable, as he doesn’t react to Eric’s valid challenges. You get the sense that DSP feels a certain way underneath but he’s a master of now showing it.
That being said Eric raised great points here that no one could really argue with him on, at least successfully.
There has to be more dialogue between people who run different systems if we’re ever to come to an understanding. DSP needs to converse with Eric who needs to converse with CS Joesph etc. If everyone stays segregated, true understanding will be hard to attain.
Masculine Fi
@Jonathan Nott what is ‘masculine Fi’ even supposed to mean? How would it differ from ‘feminine Fi’ and why are we making that distinction?
@@Im_alex_h watch DSP vids
@Jonathan Nott I have and I don’t buy it. I want to see someone actually make a sensible argument for the masc/fem distinction.
@@TheLategates If Eric was actually critiquing anything about Dave that is not about typology , then maybe one could argue it's a "personal attack". However, the subject of typing correctly is also part of the typology subject they're discussing. Also, Eric does not make a judgement about whether INTJ or ENTJ is 'bettter' or 'worse' to be, yet merely tries to point out why Dave's typing is incorrect.
If 2 hair stylists have a discussion about what the name is of a certain color, and one of them uses the others hair to give an example where the other fails to adequately catagorize the color, then that is not a personal attack either.
Wow!!! This is super cool! Never thought I'd see a time when this happens. 😁
Dave was more than happy to conclude the video rather than ask anymore more questions as he believes in his vision and isn’t really caught up in the my theory beats your theory argument. Eric is definitely knowledgeable but definitely comes of a bit douchebaggy but the point of the video was to somewhat counter critique one another by Dave wasn’t having none of it! 😂 absolutely comedy and a gem for the history books of how types play out animalistic-ally.
Strauss seemed needlessly combatively here. Tough to watch.
It's his brand.
I think the biggest problem is that all the different systems use the same terminology of mbti, but define them differently. When you look at a model (Dave's, Eric's or even csj) you need to shutdown the assosiation of other systems. It would only make sense to get a different type when you use another system wich is defined differently. Just check how the system defines the type that you get and if it makes sense of it's own context.
I wholeheartedly agree with your suggestion. People should start treating these labels in relation to each system independently.
Not shut down the association of other systems, just hold them loosely. When I'm studying Spanish, I can see the connection between words like "voto" and "vote". I just have to be careful not to assume connections between words like "embarrassed" and "embarazada" (pregnant).
The problem is everyone especially on you tube has their own interpretation of typology & no one seems to agree whereas if you read the literature the systems are still connected together under one structure typology.
Best video ever now I need popcorn and a big screen
Also side note:
Dave = Breadth - Numbers tells the story and airs out inconsistencies
Eric = Depth - Mechanism tells the story and airs out inconsistencies
Hence the difference in their approaches to typing and attempting to comprehend typological models
I think the difference is more about where they get their ideas from.
Dave gets it from patterns in reality.
Eric gets it from self ideation about the theory.
Kinda sounds like Te vs Ti
It's all about (behavioral) 'displays' vs. (cognitive) 'functions'. Whichever one you believe to be the legitimate foundation for type is the person who you'll follow. It begins and ends right there.
Like Eric, but nobody ever passes the Si polar test. We are all ENTJs.
Who is "we?"
@@Russianboyz95 Everybody who takes his Si polar test.
One possibility I’ve considered is that perhaps DSP knows he isn’t talking about the cognitive functions. His taxonomy is one of tribe vs self and organize vs gather. It may have some carryover but it really is quite different on a fundamental level. If he was more honest he would not use the four letters and he would not use the same names as MBTI for his functions. But at the end of the day Dave is a businessman. He’s knows the four letters and the MBTI function names are where the money is at. It’s a great financial move on his part, although certainly dishonest.
As for the name “objective personality” ya it’s dumb. But I’d compare it to Budweiser calling themselves the “King of Beers”
Is this true? Hell no!!!
But it’s marketing 101. Dave probably knows it’s a douchey name 😂
Haven't considered this idea before. Yeah, makes a lot of sense. And I did wonder why one wouldn't just make up new terms. Maybe hurting INFP feelings is fun to some sadists 😶 But I wouldn't blame Dave either if this was the case. We're all left to our own critical thinking.
And I side with a lot of what both of them said here. Only not Dave being an ENTJ 😂 (I promise I'm gonna read into socionics one day. One day, slowy, cause I guess I'm consume last 😅 I prefer my new input to be about the same stuff I've been thinking about for months)
Indeed I agree it's just business and him using the mbti words to attract people and gather subscribers (aka customers). I strongly have my doubst about Dave's 'long term goals' too (like linking stuff to genes etc). Sure, I could see it being possible, but I have have serious doubts if Dave has any intentions than just promising stuff and earning money from this. I believe "goal" of 'progress in science" all nothing more than some marketing story to give his system a good image and make it seem credible, like they're soo 'science' and 'objective' and so on. These words are repeated more often than "amazing" on tell-sell shows. In his videos he often tries hard to make anyone feel inadequate in typing, only to sell them a solution next (which is being his customer). He tries to sell people the idea that they're most likely 100% wrong in their typing, which means he says an INTP will most likely think they're an ESFJ (the exact opposite in function order).
Of course no one in reality has ever seen an intp think they're an ESFJ, but that's another story....
Basically the same idea as first making people fear something, and sell them the solution next (like some virus scanners free versions claiming to detect non existant "oh so dangerous mallware", only to sell you their full version next).
@@PowerRedBullTypology His CZcams channel isn't monetized. He was making great money from his RC business before he passed it off to someone else. I really think he believes in his system and what he is doing. But yes, he needs to get paid to keep doing it somehow.
@@Binyamin.Tsadik I did not mean that his channel on itself makes money via youtube, but rather that it's marketing for his typing business, which is really the business, rather than a passion of a person that possibly makes (some) money as a consequence.
I think it's set up the way he has it set up, so that he and his partner can later just relax and sit back, while other people type their customers and they get somewhat "passive" income.
It's good business model of course, but of obviously when something is set up as a business that way, the business part will always be that it has to make money first. If it does not make money, he has no income. If he would start to doubt his system, he can not take a break from it and do it all over, because in the meantime he has no income anymore.
P O W E R - R E D - B U L L Eric also is in the business of typing people, that’s why he’s going so hard in trying to make his model seem absolutely objective, business is business.
It's refreshing to see TwFP explain their methods and get behind the curtain instead just of telling everyone they're wrong and attacking.
I've always said that Eric has a hard time communicating to others (I'm not negating that there doesn't exist at least one person who understands him). I'm not sure why, but it's clearly showing in this interaction. I've always wondered if he's communicating for himself or communicating for others. Bin I love how you moderated and I think you should've made Eric explain himself more by asking questions to things that may not be clear. To get to the root of what his thoughts are and why he decided to bring into whatever domain he's talking about. Same for Dave.
Thanks for the feedback, I'll try to do this more in the future. I was able to follow most of what was going on, but I need to think of the audience too.
23:30 Even if he could remember the fights in detail no man with any good sense or self preservation is going to reveal that information publicly in that context. That was a dirty move.
Haha, good point :D
Why is it so Eric v Dave, from Eric’s perspective? Eric’s identity is so tied into this and Dave is so chill.
Eric appears so ego driven to be “Correct”, where as Dave is like “Yeah we got this system and data were getting is interesting”
@Jonathan Nott everything is ego driven in the sense that every action you take is in service of the self. It doesn’t matter what either of their motives are when it comes to evaluating who has the more correct model. DSP can’t even provide any explanations of the mechanisms that aren’t entirely circular, whereas Eric’s model (from what I’ve seen) is pretty much completely logically consistent within itself, so he’s right to not give Dave any ground. Eric says ‘the best thing for your model is to have it be attacked’ and he holds himself to that. Dave is all about being ‘scientific’ but this is the first time I’ve ever seen him engage with any of his critics, but Eric has always welcomed debate on his platform.
Alexander Hansen He wasn’t referring to their models but the temperament they displayed, in which he’s correct. Eric has an ego and is incredibly concerned about being “right” with no end goal.
great job, Binyamin! very well done!
Thanks Chris!
Interesting talk! The dynamic approach is very good. It goes down to the ever changing reality and it´s fluidity. It has potential to replicate the actual state in (probably almost) realtime and full detail; as well to display and simulate it. A good bethought and hardened taxonomy is inevitable to build a reliable running system that finally refines itself. Just like with every dynamic system nowadays. I see the data Dave is gathering being fed into the system of Eric one day. This way e.g. a simulation might be given a "face" and the system can evaluate statistic correlations from the broad datasets. Good work guys!
I would like to see Eric Strauss and Ben Vaserlan in a talk together someday as well.
@Adel Adsman Ben already interviewed Eric on this channel
haha. always a pleasure to listen to a strong ti user
Eric - " There is nothing smaller than particles..., but that's all you got... that's it, that is the firm limit, it doesn't go down any further." Ah right again I see. He's got this really odd black and white mindset... where whatever comes out of his mouth (in his mindset) is factually "right".
Eric - you did Dave dirty dawg... real dirty!! I think you had that question planned ahead of time (asking him about his most recent fight). Then, you ended the conversation while you still had the upper hand 🖐🏿
The people deserve to see a rematch!!! 😅 Great discussion, though!
I promise I had no plan, lol. Planning is not my thing.
If find it very interesting how Host Eric and Dave Super Powers are different.
Like DSP actually offers something for the tribe while Eric is critiquing quite a lot but does not offer anything substantial for the tribe.
You're perception of Eric is shallow and inaccurate
Great job, Binyamin, not many could coerce these two into a room together!!! your interviews continue to get stronger. keep up the great work!
if Binyamin can do it YOU can do it XD
It's nice when a long term plan plays out the way you want it to :D
NeTi vs NiTe
Lauren Garrison Assuming both are what they claim to be.
Sure but I'm just saying the language and what they focus on seems, from my perspective at least, to highlight Ni vs Ne differences and Te vs Ti differences.
I have a foot in each world (having Ni&Ti) so I can personally see where each have some blind spots (as I do with Ne & Te).
@@laurengarrison3118 ISTP?
@Cliven Longsight I’d like to challenge your suggestion that ENTJ’s are confident.I realize that the word confidence can mean a lot of things and manifest in different ways. This is how I see it... Extroverted confidence would be (for example) being able to speak in public or be “extroverted”. And yes, ENTJ’s should naturally be good at those types of things which are associated with confidence. But internal confidence is being in touch with one’s own personal values, and having strong solid convictions about “what’s right for me” and not having a need for approval from other people. So just to clarify, in this context I’m referring to internal confidence. With that out of the way I will start by suggesting that all ExxJ’s by nature are not confident. All ExxJ’s have a lead extroverted decider function (Te or Fe). The extroverted decider function can come across as confident especially if it’s masculine, but here’s why it’s not confident. If you have Te or Fe first, you’ll have Fi or Ti last which means your own identity is weak as fuck!! Because of the Lead De you will have a huge need for tribe validation which may manifest by constantly trying to solve other people’s problems, proactively interacting with the tribe, pinging off the tribe, controlling the tribe, giving to the tribe, anything to get tribe validation. The human need for tribe validation will manifest in many ways depending on if you have Te/Ni, Te/Si, Te/Ne, Te/Se, Fe/Ni, Fe/Si, Fe/Ne, Fe/Se. But all ExxJ’s have that need for validation which will be their biggest struggle in life. So ExxJ’s are the least confident types because they struggle the most with having confidence in they’re own identity. They will often appear confident on the outside because of the strong extroverted Decider (Fe or Te) but they’re weak and not confident on the inside because of the weak introverted decider (Fi or Ti). The ExxJ’s will use external confidence as a facade to hide their lack of confidence on the inside. So the most “confident” types are IxxP’s. They know their own values and are incredibly secure in themselves, they know what they want and don’t need any tribe validation and will often reject tribe validation because they are totally confident in who they are, what they want, and what they value. The IxxP’s problems would be over confidence in themselves and not being able to see other people’s values. Because they have a strong introverted decider (Fi or Ti) they have a weak extroverted decider (Fe or Te). So they’re not aware and don’t naturally care about other people’s opinions and values and so they don’t feel the need for tribe validation. Which makes them the most confident types. But like I said in the beginning, the word confidence can mean a lot of things and manifest in different ways.
NiTe Dave "Here's all these truths about everyone, there's a pattern, I'm following the pattern"
NeTi Eric "Here's what I know to be true, now I need to find the pattern that supports me"
That's how I see it anyway.
The “computer model” method that Eric describes is widely used in science. It is essentially a model that, given inputs representing someone who is assumed to be a certain type, would accurately predict that type. Perhaps the input is text written by that person, or a voice recording, or a combination of these or other factors.
The only caveat is the fact that the ground truth about anyone’s type is technically unknown, because type is a construct. That’s why we must assume people are of a certain type in order to be able to test the model.
That’s why DSP’s method, which consists of having multiple parties guess one person’s type, is a good way to overcome this issue, since a majority vote would indicate that the model is at least better than random.
Imagine is DSP and Eric worked together to create a database using Eric's model :O
Planet Ketchup would be sick lol
I'm not sure this is what Eric said. I had trouble understanding this part, but what I got: He wants to create a simulation where the cognitive function will be represented by the computer. And in some way, they will fight and if the scene is a Fi scene, the represented Fi instance should win. There is no human input I think, only a way to define that functions are an actual thing.
@@planetketchup5460 Well that would be great but someone's Fe isn't too good.
Ricardo Cardo yeah I think you’re right. The thing I suggested is more something I’ve had on my mind lately... I think his model would probably take in some “event”/stimuli as input and see if the computer would correctly simulate what someone of a given type would do.
I think 40 minutes isn't long enough for a general discussion between these two (although it's better than nothing, which is what most people would have expected before Binyamin made it happen). I've checked out Eric's channel and heard him say that 'jumpers' don't exist. Would have liked to see them debate that specific point in depth given how central it is to Dave's model.
Great point about talking about Jumpers
24:00 Seems a little too easy to say that anyone who doesn't snap volunteer a specific memory has PoLR Si, aka 7Si. Why not 8Si? Also buried in the unconscious and lines up with Dave's self-type as NiFi (INTJ jumper).
Confirmation bias is the nemesis of it all. No matter which system you want to apply. If you _want_ to apply it, you're prone to bias. We notice one little bit of what someone says, even if to anyone else it may be insignificant - and we zoom in on it, disregarding other indicators. We may even stop noticing the strong Te within the supposed Ti user, as we're unconcsiously only looking for Ti and Fe.
So Dave has got a point with the scientific method. If you set up simple definitions that can not be misinterpreted, people can agree easier. And they may still be wrong. But the chance of being right is significantly higher if you consistently agree. If you always disagree, what's even the point of it? It will stay arbitrary. Even if you disagree with his terms, you can use the same method to track type according to which definitions you consider true. Set up two people who independently from each other watch the same thing and see how it plays out. 🤔 Results are still up for debate afterwards. Truth usually wins the long haul.
Eric’s definitions are more simple and make more sense than DSPs
@@Im_alex_h I'd agree with neither. Dave makes it as simple as it gets in his binary coin approach. "It can only be this or that, don't overthink it". It doesn't really get more simple than that.
@Someone Random example,
Dave says (if I remember correctly)
Ti: what works for me
Fi: personal truth
Can you actually explain to me why that is different? How do I know when I’m using Ti vs Fi?
Compare this to Eric’s,
Ti: disinterested calculus
Fi: interested calculus
If I am using a disinterested calculus I necessarily cannot be applying an interested calculus; I cannot be thinking both ‘what is fair or more truthful?’ and ‘what do I want to happen/feel better about?’ at the same time. I can do one after the other, but it logically follow that you cannot think about something objectively and subjectively at the same time.
Eric’s framework is actually pretty simple, it’s just his presentation sucks. I suggest looking at his google docs stuff on his blog.
@@Im_alex_h
T - judging information based on what works
F - judging information based on what is valued
i - by/for me
e - by/for everyone
Put it together and you have Ti, Fi, Te and Fe. That is one step out of a whole bunch. And added up it seems more complicated. That's the sum of it. If you concern yourself with one binary coin at a time, it really shouldn't be. I agree that if you break it down, Eric's definitions are simple, too.
@@Im_alex_h And, to maybe prove your point, I can't really explain the difference right now without making it more complicated than the definitions.
If you view things by my understanding of Dave's measures, you could see an FP type getting triggered when other people do things that the FP doesn't value - and it doesn't even seem to have tribe reason.
The TP would be triggered by things that do not make sense to them which the tribe also does not value. It is about your own rational reasoning + the tribe's value for Ti. And it is about your own values + tribe efficiency for Fi.
I find myself wondering if this Si question would have yielded different results if Eric had asked Dave about things rather than people. I can't remember the last fight I had, despite being pretty confrontational. But I can remember the last time I got mad at an Object. A can of soda fell on my foot when I opened the refrigerator.
Thank you for this video, I couldn't believe it when I saw it! It made me laugh a few times.
I have been working to be self taught with Objective Personality Typing because it was the first one I came across that sorted temperaments into logical order and not based on dated archetypes that have ambiguous interpretation such as "Guardian" "Artisan" etc. That also means I think Metaphysical plane, physical plane seems a bit impractical.
I thought the point of all this typing stuff was so we could learn to interact more effectively and work together for the betterment of the species?
How did I miss this when it happened? It was around when I was watching Eric's TypePolice vids for fun that I started discovering DaveSuperPowers' og material and got sucked into the OPS vortex. Now, two years later, I am OP typed and I really think Shannon and Dave nailed my 512 type!
If in OP two (or many) separated typologists start from an inaccurate definition for a function, that both agreed on beforehand, they will probably get the same results consistently anyway, but they might not label the to be observed phenomenons correctly. Its a wrong idea of what objectivity is made of.
You need a database of challenges, human situations, problems, then a way to measure how the subject approaches, solves, or fails to solve and correlate that with the cognitive functions and how the CF’s state a type will approach, solve, etc.
Both work, but I think Dave sees the bigger picture..
More of these please! Great video Benyamin :)
Interesting interaction though it seems that DSP came at it from an angle of not really challenging or debating Eric. No doubt it was for strategic purposes and in fact Binyamin seemed to give Eric more intellectual push back as well as raising some valid points in the potential flaws in his thinking. It would have been nice to hear what DSP truly thinks and it makes me wonder if the reason for coming on was more of a placation thing.
I believe it was. And that you can sense it.
The way I see it, they both seek different goal using same tools, then they debate whether the other use them correctly or not.
I've seen OPS website. I know their ultimate aim. They try to be scientific like Big Five. They simply want validity, not holistic explanations of everything, which is what typology including MBTI do, and they often fail horribly at that.
I find OPS very useful and a noble goal, but that doesn't mean that it cannot be criticized. Nothing is holy. If anything, OPS really need Ti in their team.
I’m glad you got some (more) resolution by both guys, ultimately typing you as ISTP. I understand now what you were doing by somewhat pitting them against each other. You were looking for truth, which is exactly what Ti Doms do. Good channel, Binyamin.
Thanks man, welcome.
Love the last half of the conversation.. Find myself agreeing with both parties :)
Veryyyy interesting debate. Twfp was a clear winner here. Dave is good but he has other things in mind he wish to do. What a gem to watch these people
Isabel Myers was definitely a Feeler 😁🙃
I'm a back and forth critic of everything, but I like Dave's attitude throughout this.
In short: 3 brains attempting to systematize personality using Ti heavy/ scientific approach, while excluding cultural and experiential dynamics..
That´s a legit comment. Just they both are operating on living humans, so there is indeed the cultural and environmental influence included. They should however always be aware to keep that in mind in future as well, to not make it to a static system.
Eric is definitely the Tom Waits of typology ;-) (y)
:D
@d brown you cannot expect that an analogy holds in every detail ;-) I did ratehr not think of Toms aversion of being public.
There are also details that fit although it wasnt about those either. Eric has a remarkable singing voice for example.
The difference in the perceiving axis is explicit here (although their goals are similar.) Personality theory needs the additions of both if it wants to reach the entire audience I'd assume.
The first time I take the mbti on a website I didn’t care much except the fact that I resonate a lot with the description of the type. But for some reason I return to retest 2 weeks later and I got one letter differently from previous type. From there I was super interested and dive into cog functions. It was surprising that they would identify somebody personality with only 4 différents parts (s,n,t,f) and I was wondering if they’re were more than those 4.
After 2 years now of spending time learning Cog fun (Eric, op), enneagram , socionics, Carl Jung, général psychology, I think there are only 8cog f even tho we have more patterns but not in that attention. I am pretty sure that to understand fully someone life and what he/she tend to those 8 functions are scarily doing a great job.
The principal problems here are the lack of nuances and the false correlation. Plus people forget how experiences, DNA background (pre constitution physiologically différents) forge that too. Determinism and existentialism are ideas that resonate a lot of what cog fun are. They are a mix of both with infinite possibilities but still determine in nature. Tracking them will lead us to know society problems and bias by knowing individuals in a general over time display. We just need better writing and a define map that is touching every side of what a personality constitute (extend format of the human evolutionary experience).
We need more discussions like that. DSP is great for acknowledging patterns within type but Eric is the king for definitions. And binyamin for interviewing 😋
Rewatching this video and I’m gonna say both are delusional in their own way that’s funny. Im impress by the lack of passions and only focus on science in Dave’s part. I don’t think he is confortable in the debate environnement and he doesn’t consume much lol. Eric just being smart and want to remain that way so he doesn’t explain so mister nobody know what he is talking about. He is right just within his system that doesn’t look at nurture and variance so it’s a little pattern recognition of 8 skills wooo I am right because this person can’t draw, but can jump, what a system Eric. You are right your system is true within his block, a tiny block that misrepresent some patterns (but you can’t see it cause it’s linear and static).I am happy how much I evolve on the topic. Gonna rewatch a year later lol.
The Four Globes (TFG system/my current personality system):
Part 1: Innate Personality Type and projection on the 3 fundamentals humans levels (Cog, Human needs, Informational elements) = inspiration Ops, Eric and Jung
Part 2: Time, culture, idéologies, éducation. The map of the environment of the individual. Epigenetics/DNA = inspiration Biology, Jordan Peterson and Humans sciences
Part 3: Shadow stack, family, archetypes and structure of the psyche. The underground structure of someone minds and it’s fantasies = Jung, Cs Joseph and mythology
Part 4: Map of Consciousness and Type evolution and skills= inspiration Queens Gambit and Jung
All 4 Globes are interacting with each other. Some more for some specific reasons and for others différents one.
Benefits: fundamentals, universals, understanding, personal growth, better individuals, better society and decisions
Accuracy: Scarily explain people and their mechanisms, track innate, track transformation in generality
Problems: Determinism, Age, Capability of consciousness, Science application, theory driven
Wooo been a long time. I like the fact that around each year I post something here and it is a good separation and réalisation of time. That time, this year was even more powerful so I expect to write a solid paragraph here.
I see both opinions a lot more vivid now and of course it match their types wich they both seem fine to continue doing (wich is neither good or bad). So we understand how types are real and that you are déterminé a lot by default. One of the major quality of serious typology is understanding how you work mechanically and that doesn’t change. The nurture aspect is majorly the reaction of your personality. We know that by how predictable and how différents persons in family end up in different places.
In my work wich I refine a lot this year and made it actually a « system », I illustrate the difference of personality, type, mixture, self and spirit. There are definitions people lack of understanding. The major importance is that type is only innate and default, personality is own type + own experience + own culture + universal (narrow down so own), mixture is the totality of innate wich is impossible in my view, and self is totality of personality wich is impossible in my view. Spirit is the self elevate to the abstract form. The pattern that never die of yourself and that exist in the abstract.
Now mechanism wise we look at types and personality here wich is poorly distinguish in typology. But the majority of good typologist intuitively know that we look at types wich is inside the personality. Back to the discussion: Eric push a lot that aspect that the map is well define and the actions reactions a of a person in its process will put the individual in well arrange mechanisms that works cohesively. And Dave even tho he is not explaining so much the mechanisms (wich I would like him to do because he actually do it), he is doing the binary games of coins. The duality of isolations in a persons is what makes it verifiable and subject to analysis due to isolations.
The cause and the source need to be isolate and seen for what it is at the origin wich Op has done a good job. The problem is that they poorly know the definitions haha put they got a good reference point cause they made it so simple, and they got the relations well done. The problem of relation is: is it a significant pattern to observe 1. and can it be observable correctly in a person 2. does it explain people well 3.
3. Eric work with cognitives fucntions and Ops with cognitives fucntions + human needs + animals so they have more chance of observing a wider range of patterns in people simply by the number of tools they work with. That doesn’t mean they are all significant but that they are most likely to cover more explanations of people.
2. Éric verify by testing people with tests and Ops with blind test. Eric see cognitions as matter of attention and Dave as saviors and demons energy. Now what is the optimal way of doing it ? Usage and skills ? Or energy towards functions and life pills ? I am a lot more on board with energy wich will actually display themselves in insecurity wich will most likely be a probablement of usage and skills. With time I did saw the two systems seeing something similar in terms of that but that impressions of energy for Eric push him to be sometimes wrong. So the real deal is knowing the energy. Because some people depending on phase and development will use and develop skills for fucntions that are lower. And connections fucntions to animals can get you to access more the behavioral side of things in the working in reality of fucntions dynamically in actions. Eric with his test is trying to do that but has not form definitions for functions working together except the get, receive, working wich is still individual just the cohesive of the stack order (wich I will talk later and yes it is a Ops problem).
1. This one is the one full of illusions. That’s why a lot in the world work on subjectivity, that can be with ideologies, cult, culture, your brain, etc. With a higher levels of reality explanations of psychology that can be difficult to sort out relevant informations. The ways are universals, experience and verifications aka logic, causality, methods. It’s over time that you can see that one and Intj Ivey know something is going on. The description and wisdom is probably what get people interest first and after what I mention previously. A type that can explain the most out of someone and is a copy paste to another individual of the same type is the realitistic way of dealing with something valuable.
Spectrum is what we will get form doing all this job and refining those coins, duality and mechanisms. Your own subjective self cannot hide form the pools of people in this world. Compare to them you are more like that and that, etc. In this day and age it is the perfect period to see the contrast. After put it in an AI and computer to track in the data set base on speech, life pills, energy, brain waves. The entirety of the being being type wich is also a problem form our typing methods now wich is fine.
In my system 1 wich is one out of 15 différents systems and spheres, I deal with typology strictly. I came to the conclusion over the year that Ops is the best system wich you can see in my paragraphs. But it has some problems wich come from animals, some dynamic and observer/decider. It is not super super significant but for making it perfect it is still a problem. In summary I put the Ops type than put a stack order in my tables of pattern, after it is in experience wich is personality (innate + experience), that’s what queen gambit is doing.
So in my tables of pattern here are the highlights of Ops problems: 1. Ambivert animals 2. Animal equivalence 3. Optimistic and pessimistic fucntion 4. Stack order. Basically it is keeping some relevant typology patterns Ops has erase.
1. Ambivert animals are the first two in the stack, by default reality for individual is introvert and extrovert, Eric is right saying it should be the case for everyone to have this order. I don’t think so in terms of saviors and demons energy but that those Ambivert are still 16 personnalité verifiable and hold a pattern. That problem is not that big since op recognize the stack order is still relevant.
2. Animal equivalence is Ops saying ExxP consume is the same as IxxP consume. The only thing that sépare them is observer and decider. That is a lack of precision in the sequence. Overall it is not so much an issue but that’s need to be done for the personality (innate + experience) tracking later on in some of my sphere. Like Blast De Oi is different than Oi De. The definitions are slightly different. The decider and observer coin bring a problem to that because it is the deviding line according to Ops.
3. Optimcitc and pessimist is the flow of a type wich is the Play and Sleep (first and third fucntions of the stack). It’s the flow of the type cause Ambivert animal is more clashing by the state of the different fucntion charge. But flow is less likely savior cause it circulate. Ops are right doing savior and demons and identifying « jumpers ». The optiomistic and pessimistic are still pattern that need to be address.
4. Stack order is simply common typology knowledge of second fucntions = tool, etc.
For example of all that, I put Ops type. Dave: Ni Fi SB/P(C) MF. After in the tables I put Te Ni Fi Se. We know Dave is not Ni Fi Te Se or Ni Te Fi Se because he has Ni tool and Te first dynamics. His optimistic is Te Se wich he often misinterpret has blast in himself (doing, need get job done). That bring that he is De Oi overall instead of Oi De in mixture (I look at the sequence after wich is innate + experience but still give the taste). If he is an Intj or Entj he still use Ambivert Ni Te. The last function give observer and decider.
It is simple when you look at it actually but explain a lot. My last paragraph is basically my system 1.
I like that the video highlight too the fact that marketing and making sense for others is a big one. Like Eric Strauss even tho in my opinion has a system that doesn’t work as well than Ops it’s still work in its block and is vastly more valuable than what he gets. And that’s simply because he is not able to deliver the informations so well in an educative process progressive way and market it poorly.
I think its on september-october 2020 that my system got a huge buff lol. Totally not what it is here. It was after that comment it seems. Insane what can happen in a span of 4 years. Some mistakes in my other more recent comment but relatively fine especially assessing the convo and Eric and Dave. My table also not that bad, I thought it was more recent tbh. Maybe I start conceptualizing it seriously around the begining of 2022. I mean the huge thing is that typology is in sphere 1-3 not globe 1 or part 1. Its interior precise and interior universal and of course its process is also on other globes and spheres, its just that it is isolate in sphere 1-3.
Its very funny how things evolve rapidly in the making of my systems. I thought I was finish in september 2020 (I was at doing base structure mandala), I thought I was relatively finish in november 2021 (I was in terms of the big categories of all globes in spheres at 90% probably and mostly what my system actually is) but no hahaha I still miss the symbolic langage and some important stuff out there. Got me thinking I will never finish lol and to some degree thats very true it will continue endlessly. 2022 was a digestive year so it was rather quiet, I was writing a lot tho and I put my system aside to have some freshness and unbound realisations. Even typology got tossed away. I would say since 2021 I had relatively low realisations about typology except more people in the data and a easier time typing some people. It relatively work, because in 2023 I came back and had lots of realisations about lots of stuff including typology and I formulate my system in a more presentable fashion by testing AI stuff, writing on website.
I feel bless and burden by all the realisations I have and its kind of hard. But I rely heavily on the process and the future will be quite interesting. Its an ongoing process and my stuff is not finish lol. The bird eye view is just insane now. I never thought typology would be some kind of precursor to all this. We will see how things go but yeah definitely some hard hitters. Cant wait to share. Its not something "new" lol its just that my thing will probably be a part of a movement, I dont care if my part is small or large. It will just be very useful and I hope I can help a lot. Right now I concentrate on the presentation and I know it will take lots of years, plus I am still super young. Theres a part of me that cant wait and I know it will be water down and divide. I just feel grateful and looking back its just insane.
Perfect example, at around 23 min in, of the flaw in Eric's PoLR tests. Yes, he's correct that failure to recall specific events and details from one's life is related to low Si, but that doesn't mean Si is PoLR/7th slot!
How can he be so sure it's 7th slot and not 8th? He CAN'T be that sure.
And since the PoLR test is so central to Eric's system, his system is bunk.
EDIT: ALSO, I KNOW that Eric thinks people are actually good with their 8th slot function, but I see no evidence for that, and, again, that's why Eric's system is so flawed.
Bringing the heat Brother!
Edit: Seems like Eric missed an opportunity to Respectfully articulate some of his Objectively valid points here. Instead, he lightweight chose to promote himself.
Dave composed himself well.
Yo... Think you can swing a Michael Pierce & CSJ addition to this particular forum in the future?
*BONUS*
EJArendee "resurrection."
😁
CSJ refused an interview
I'll try and get Pierce
Whaaa?
CSJ wouldn't come through?
Hm. Trip out..
Hey, at least you put in the work though.
Man, a Michael Pierce/Dave/Ben Collab would be quite *epic.*
Dave can't recall specific dates. Must be an ENTJ!!
lol
@Jacob Sloan it wasn’t just that he couldn’t recall the date, he also couldn’t recall the specific contents of the fight. He just said “sometimes we fight about the kids...” it’s very vague. An Si user could probably give you a more detailed answer like “Cody overslept and was about to be late for the bus so Shannon said she could just drive him to school, but I said ‘no, he can just go to the bus stop right now and miss his chance to the shower because he needs to learn this life lesson,’ and she thought I was being to harsh so...” or something like that.
I think this was a bad question to ask Dave in this context since he might have been holding back because he didn’t want to put his business out there, but asking questions like this is actually a fairly reliable way to test for PoLR/poor Si.
Try asking something like: when you were in high school were you a nice kid or a mean kid?
Person: I was nice
You: can you give me an example?
Si user, probably: yeah, one time I gave Becky my lunch when she forgot her lunch money. Another time I stood up to the bully that was being mean to Josh.
Ni user, probably: I would help out people that were in need. I even stood up to some bullies a couple times
*following up with the Ni user*
You: can you tell me the name of any of those people? Or can you just explain how it went down with a bully?
If they totally draw a blank and cannot recall the details for the life of them(assuming they were telling the truth), it can be pretty indicative of Si PoLR. Of course this isn’t going to be accurate 100% of the time but Eric has definitely revealed a pattern there.
Host Eric has typed DSP on his channel before. This one question isn’t solely what he typed him based on, but Host Eric has gotten PoLR Te people to answer these types of questions in the same way very reliably, and Host Eric already thought he was ENTJ before he ever had the chance to try the PoLR Te question on him.
Si POLR dude!1!1!11!! FACTS AND SCIIIIEEEENNNNCCEEEEE
Paul Jackson Jumper leprechaun with eagle in its feminine Fi.... come on....
11:01 - I agree with Binyamin. We find out more and more. Eric’s Ti is getting ahold of him
@Michelle Wilson it’s true that we can always learn more about why people display in different ways and how they personally choose to use specific functions, but that goes beyond cognitive functions. The cognitive functions model is just a linguistic taxonomy that grants us a vocabulary to talk about all the different attentional manners, it’s not supposed to be the end all be all way of understanding people. Eric’s model serves its purpose better than any other that I’ve seen people present. The functions stacks are more like archetypes, not a high resolution image of a person.
Dave’s problem is he’s trying to create some all encompassing Ni framework to explain every single difference in behavioral displays. But without any Ti constraints like the ones Eric is pushing for he’s doomed to just keep having to add more and more types, because ultimately on the deepest level no two people are exactly the same and therefore no 2 people are always going to use their functions in the exact same way.
I think it's more his Masculine Si.
Alexander Hansen since no two people are the same on the deepest level then there’s no reason to believe Eric has the best model. Having Ti constraints limits the possibility of depth in that sense, but rather finds a better classification of the functions that contains some wiggle room so to speak.
*Consuming Popcorn*
33:40
People with higher IQ’s tend to have bigger brain to body ratios, thicker axons, be taller, have less fractal dendrite connections (the connections are more pure, ie less static), etc.
Cool to see two of my fave mbti smarties chilling together :)
what i noticed mainly in the first 15 minutes
is the INTJ jumper focusing on what works
and the ENTP focusing on the truth
I’ve been reading the comments for like 30 minutes now without actually watching the video
lol
28:42 I wish someone would've asked if he could name a time in which that happened and what were the specifics.
Yea...
I really don’t trust someone to type others if they can’t type themselves. Him looking for objective ways is just an excuse because he’s not able to type himself through self awareness.
Eric: "You're wrong and I'm right"
Dave: "Cool brah"
I'm not sure that having the Ti disinterested calculus as a function precludes you the human from engaging in an interested calculus.
So having Ti doesn't forcibly result in a specific slot Fi.
(Not convinced that Ti is precisely defined as a disinterested calculus)
Not convinced either
In so far as identity is encoded in Ti or Fi, the definition of Ti as "disinterested calculus" works based on an equivocation fallacy, which consists of two different meanings of the word "disinterested". From the perspective of calculus for self engendering a subjective identity, there can logically be no disinterest because there is a motivation behind the decisions made by and for the self. Unless something is literally forced upon you, if you have a will that makes a decision, that will has an interest (which you are either aware of or you're not) which in turn biases you decision towards a particular purpose or outcome with which you subjectively identify. Ti can make "scientific disinterest" or "objectivity" its goal, but so can Fi. In fact, you see exactly this play out. On the other hand, "disinterested" as in "removed from emotional awareness" makes for a more accurate description of Ti, since it actually differentiates Ti from Fi. This meaning also leads to what you see with Ti-doms, namely that they consciously make decisions on the basis of rationality and reasons, or calculus for short, rather than trying to maximize a particular feeling/chemical response in themselves. This does not ensure that the calculus is unbiased (let alone true relative to reality), only that it is internally consistent. In other words, Ti is "interested calculus" (= "it's true if it fits into my system") while Fi is "interested feeling" (= "It's valuable if I feel positively towards it"). The extraverted deciders are going to be "disinterested" in the first sense of the word because they don't deal with the self but only with facts about and acknowledged by people: What everybody else feels/values or what they consider logical/true is not up to you and thus cannot be biased by your own interest, short-comings, or motivation. It's not a decision but a recognition of the distribution, on the one hand, and a force exerted by other people on the self, on the other hand. Hence, if anything, Te is "disinterested calculus" (=reasoning that works for more than one Ti, in absence of personal interest) while Fe is "disinterested value" (=qualities deemed important by more than one Fi, in absence of personal interest). And that's exactly what Dave's system is definitionally encoding.
Loved Eric ability to show that direct to the point question are very revealing. Same as Katherine Farvue Tr-typing system reveal how people of different enneagram lead function can be be pin pointed by words and pictures. Tying to make personal profiling into a hard science, is just so wrong on so many levels. We are already are being shape by media and the education system, to losing our individuality. We are becoming sheeple and it scare the shit out of me.
I love it. Give me an argumentationaly valid system that can produce consistent typings via the displays and Dr Nardi can throw in some brain science to check it all/ explain it at a neurological level. If only the systems didn't contradict.
Right?!
This get/put/receive/push stuff is interesting.
Host Eric is a true typology gangster! Everyone is a gangster until you’re in front of a real one ☝️
Wowzers
Surely the best way of testing a personality system is to measure how well its working for its purpose... If MBTI is being uses for team building in a workplace, then does the system help the team? If its being used to assess a person's type then DSP's system is fair, if its being used for personal growth then does then is that being reported by those using it... I'm sure there's other ways... The problem with seeking some objective universal method is that there is no agreed measure of reality, as MBTI itself tells us. Better to tie any measure to a specific cog function and understand the limits of a given measure. The problem with both DSP and HE is they are both locked into their own cog function perspective of objectivity. It's funny really because if there's a lesson to learn from MBTI it's that two different functional perspectives are bound to be incompatible. I like both tho.
Dave's system is based on a few fundamental principles that differ tremendously from MBTI. Dave's theory is that the personality code is genetic, which changes the entire game. In genetics, there are always two binary sides to every coin. And then you have classic ideas like "For every action, there's an equal and opposite reaction”. There's an equal amount of dark and light (yin and yang). Unlike MBTI, their entire system is based on that concept. Which is where the idea of Savior/Demon functions come from. We would have two overpowered functions, and two weak functions, with two of the functions being more balanced. Two saviors and two demons. Two powerful savior functions that can only be controlled if forcefully starved to death, but also two scary, dark, demon functions that are terrified of being brought into the light and exercised. Both things have to happen to attain balance. We are biologically obligated to only do your saviors, which causes a huge imbalance in our life. Which is where our problems come from. And the scary part is if it's genetic, then by definition, we wouldn't be able to see ourselves. We're not aware of who we really are. Why is it that your family can’t see their own problems? but you can. This means your family probably sees your problems but you can’t. Which is why self typing doesn't work. The only way you can know your type is to ask people who know you well, to be honest with you about your strengths and weaknesses. I was lucky enough to have mentors in my life who gave me honest feedback on my weaknesses, and I've used that information to figure out my type. Dave also helped me figure out my type. I didn't believe it at first, I thought I was an INFJ, it turns out I'm almost the exact opposite type.
The code split from 16 types to 32 types when they discovered jumpers, which means your third function can be a "savior" and your second function can be a "demon". Then they discovered the 4 animals and the masculine/feminine functions. When you combine them all, you get 512 trackable types. So most people's type doesn't exist in MBTI. For example, I'm an ESTJ, but I'm a quiet, introverted, calm, very agreeable ESTJ. Also, I tend to gather new information instead of organize known information, so I'm chaotic, not controlling. That's impossible according to MBTI because they haven't discovered the Jumpers. All ESTJ's are supposed to be Te/Si, which means all ESTJ's are controlling according to MBTI... and because MBTI hasn't discovered the animals or feminine/masculine, it thinks all ESTJ's are super extroverted, disagreeable, and dominant. But I'm not that way and I'm still an ESTJ. This is my official type FF-Te/Se PC/S(B). I'm very analytical (ST) and my biggest fear has always been what people think of me, and I'm constantly trying to solve other peoples problems which is the need for tribe validation (Te). And I'm definitely chaotic and hate to do the same thing more than once, and I always go with the facts (Se), not abstract theories.
MBTI hasn't progressed since the 1950s and it's main problem is that it's completely oblivious to the concept of binary coins and how powerful the Savior/Demons are. Which is ultimately what separates MBTI from Dave's system. Dave's goal is to use the personality code for personal growth and to help people. MBTI is only interested in figuring out types for the sake of figuring out types. No one is serious about using MBTI in their own lives to objectively learn what's causing their problems and how to fix them. And even if they were there's simply too much information missing.
To use the code for personal growth requires a growth mindset and recognition that 100% of your problems come from your lack of balance with your saviors/demons. I've been studying MBTI for years, and also Dave's system since he released it in early 2018. MBTI never helped me see my problems or show me how to fix them. It was a fun but useless hobby. Dave's system has helped me grow and become aware of my weaknesses, so I can take responsibility to try and get better over time.
I've realized why I've struggled so much with low confidence and a weak Identity (Demon Fi). I've always been a people pleaser and I didn't even know it. Now that I can see it, it's embarrassingly obvious. I can now finally start building my own Identity. And I know why I'm very chaotic (Demon Ni). I'm always jumping to the next thing and not sticking with something long enough to complete the task. But It's been so rewarding to see myself grow in my weak areas because I now know exactly what I need to work on. And even though it's been painful to try and build my own identity and be more organized, It's so rewarding as well!
When I hear 23 and me I had an observer moment a little bit. Google is collecting all our genes man.
Both underlying mechanism and clean data need to correct each other in tandem. I think we already have the "general idea" about the mechanism. It's time to collect more data, so we can fix any false assumptions out of the system. If we only rely on the underlying system, there are many systems that can be created to be consistent, yet only one would be true. What's true depends on the verifiable data points.
Why do you assume only one can be true? What is your basis for truth in this context? The glass half empty, half full analogy is used to show how people perceive a specific situation but one answer is not more true than the other. The glass is both half empty and half full. So which data set is more accurate, the empty part of the glass or the full part?
@@SM-es2os that's not the right analogy. you can see an empty glass and know that it can be both half full and empty, doesn't change the underlying mechanism of how the glass is filled. 1/2 cup of water, if you will. that already implies 1/2 cup of something else.
my point is, a system can be overly complicated and yet still consistent, but reality is already consistent for the most part, so you need both reason and reality check working in tandem to get things right. there is only one truth, many interpretations, and one simplest system.
and I've checked Dave's channel, he had some insights, but I think some of his talk about empiricism is just business rather than for "science community"
So curious as to what Dave has typed Eric
MM-Ne/Ti - CP/B(S)
@@drcharliewallace interesting, thanks!
Using OPS I can confidently guess that Eric would have NT Sleep as a Savior (if not, then as a second animal), as well as that he is a single decider. They would call this an ISTP technically.
Why Mtbi is not scientific enough: MTBI test is so weak and SO not perfected that it literally hurts my brain.
Also, it really makes no sense in relationship or pressing on any personality judgement because childhood conditioning, any old subconscious traumas and specifically attachment style of any adult PLAYS THE BIGGEST ROLE in how we behave in life, not some mtbi type. For personality big 5 makes way more sense because it is not focused on calling it a TYPE or any society polarization, or matching.
Mtbi is fun, but not clean and clear enough to pin point any facts specifically, neither can predict a best match in humans, again it is not even a surface level of psychology or science.
You keep misspelling it.
Like I've said the best way is interaction styles maybe one day I'll debate lol well idk im not entp lol
I'm somewhat with you on that. I think that you can be the surest about a person's type once you were able to jot down their functions in the certain slots. But I personally take interaction styles with a grain of salt. I can say that it really *does* seem to be accurate 100% of the time. But it is often quite hard to settle when you don't see things super clearly, neither functions nor interaction styles. And it is hard for me to distinguish some things, as it seems to be a very floaty idea at times. The definitions are not clear either. At least, I don't perceive them as such. I gotta read into that.
This is what I like about Dave's system, btw. He makes things very, very clear and hard to misunderstand. Maybe it is a Te thing. Ti would get stuck up in details to not miss out on anything important. Te can narrow things down _to the important_ much more efficiently. Wether or not it is actual type they're tracking is a whole nother story.
But I believe there is truth to it. Interaction styles and OP findings to me do not even contradict each other. People that I am certain about in what type I think they are, are people whose behaviour I can explain from within both frameworks simultaneously. Unless I got that down, I don't settle on having typed someone. I see truth in both. And I believe it might very well be different translations of the same phenomena. Once the dust settles around the differences, we can achieve a common translation to all of it - and type will be certain.
I would have like to see Dave put up a better fight. I like his system.
This is the problem in the psychotherapy field... everyone has got a new model! Whoopee! A new model that is all inclusive and "modern day". Now there are 100s of models quoting some dead therapist from the past. Who gives a puck!? Everyone knows it's the therapeutic relationship with the therapist being the agent of change that creates movement. So basically, if you are Eric and unlikeable, few are gonna like and understand your system. If you are Dave, and likeable, and we can understand what you are testing (i.e., measurable, reliable, relatable) than the "tribe" will eat it up. Both these guys are trying to reinvent the wheel but generally people only take a liking to one of these characters and that is who wins. Everyone can see Eric's blind spot in life problems LOL It's pretty clear. He sounds smart... but there is a simpler way of sounding smart and it requires tempering the douchiness. I'm sure Dave pokes holes in his own system and challenges it. Eric is upset because he thinks he is the only one that see's the "real" problem with Dave's method and everyone else's. I don't know... maybe his personality just rubs me the wrong way. The science community is full of purists so good luck!
Hahaha what a spicy interview I love it.
Eric was pretty block headed in this one. Not sure why he was so Combative towards depth beyond his own understanding. Im not seeing much Ne there as he claims seems more like masculine Se to me.
What you perceive as depth is your Ni. Ne can be combative against Ni.
@@Binyamin.Tsadik yeah that makes sense! He seemed to be very closed to new ideas which maybe thats just masculine Ti but I have masculine Ti as my first function and the last time I sounded as arrogant as Eric sounded was in highschool. I didnt like how he basically shut you down in favor of his own belief rather then disecting or compartmentalizing what you said and explaining why or why not he in his "opinion" thought it was differing rather then stating his opinion as fact and absolute.
Eric is so cocky and he is arguing just for sake of arguing, I hate that, Dave have a goal and want to give to people clear simple system. I don't event want to watch Eric videos because their are chaotic and too long with negative vibe and clickbait titles.
Same here.
@@joyandpeacefullaughter5307 Despite Eric having by far the most robust, accurate system, it doesn't get much support because people rely on heuristics like "negative vibes" to make judgments rather than assessing the arguments themselves.
I don't believe there is predicting of human behavior period. Not in any meaningful way. But we can have fun predicting it.
high Fi?
@@PowerRedBullTypology dom
Yea I was playing dumb to get him to reveal his position. Eric got a bit tripped up. I don't think this is the way to prove a system.
@@entropyfun Didnt get a notification about your comment..but your statement is sooooo Fi, that yeah it makes sense that you're an Fi dom
@@entropyfun Fi doms are typically 'anti categorization', no matter how legic the system may be. It seems anti-Ti quite often.
Consistency doesn’t matter if both are wrong
Lmao Strauss gives me strong Destiny/Hasan Piker/Vaush “debate lord” vibes
Mans should make a twitch and duke it out with people for fun
So what I have concluded from this talk is that Dario Nardi is the one that is going to save us all from this shit show of different systems. I can see a world in which both systems could be right about the type of one person but the methods in which people have a preference for typing will come into play.
As an INTP im like...screw scientific establishment, its analogues in the mainatream media, a decaying and slow moving system...move over for free market typology
Yeahhhh... so basically what MBTI is doing?
@@djuradjuric7161 yes and now its being invalidated by the 2 people your watching and many many more working outside the scientific establishment. Your example of MBTI actaully proves my point as i hear bitching from those in scientific camp, but no alternatives being presented.
@@guillermoValdez369
There isn't really any bitching in scientific community. They're just pointing out that the mbti system is unreliable at best and completely misleading at worst which makes it not applicable in a grander scale. As far as new alternatives go, it's not their job to present them as much as it is to test things out to check for validity, it's what 95% of scientific research comes down to. It's very ungrateful work to say the least so you know, I think the disdain you have for them is just really silly and kinda childish.
I agree that the scientific establishment has valid criticisms of MBTI as many outside of the system do aswell. Its childish to assume that its "not the job" of scientist/researchers to create or propose alternatives to a system they criticise (your pretending you dont see the criticisms for some reason), your Ti expectations are far to low. Also weather you like it or not the scientific establishment is being left in the dust as its becomming more and more apparent that big $$ rules research. See pharma and nutrution, fitness as obvious exampels. please show me where scientists have validated the existence of extraverted intuition. Also you can perform scientific experiments withoutt the Te consensus of scientific governing bodies. The cpncensus says its ok for you to stop relying on Te and use your Ti
@@guillermoValdez369
I mean it's true what you say about pharma and all that stuff but it doesn't diminish the continuous contributions sciences have in engineering (which is a huge field of study btw), economics, military, robotics, IT, etc.
Criticism of scientific community not bringing alternatives to mbti assumes that they have an obligation to do so which is in no way true, you don't have to propose something new in order to point out that something simply doesn't work.
As far as your Ti/Te talk goes all i can say is that Ti can fall into making uninformed assumptions of the world which I as a Ti secondary acknowledge fully and try to take into consideration.
I mean it's fine to say that you can conduct experiments on your own but you still need peer review for your findings to have any validity to them and for world to take them seriously otherwise you just have alternative science which is as viable as horoscope.
This is badass! Haha
37:47 -38:00 Funny Ne :D
Thanks, Snake ix!
@@Talkingwithfamouspeople it was pure Ne random moment 👍
who the hell does Eric think he is... ??? 🤨
The future president of USA.
I'm interested in building a simulation of some sorts, typology is like an RPG so it shouldn't be that difficult.
"A lot of people" - Subscribers = 4