A Critique of Objective Personality
OP promises a scientific, accurate, unbiased determination of your core personality. Don’t believe the hype.
Overview
Objective Personality Theory is a relatively recent system of typology that has been in public use/development since 2014. The creators of the system, Dave and Shannon (“D&S”), produce regular video lessons and documents that explain its foundations and application. Most people become familiar with the system through the content of their YouTube channel, or through exposure on typology forums, blogs and subreddits. D&S offer an online class of video lessons for a monthly fee, as well as a Typing Service to get an official typing through their system.
The system claims to build upon the four functions (x2 attitudes) originally devised by Carl Jung, with additional inputs from a number of sources: D&S appear to favor the function organization suggested by Harold Grant, the letter system of MBTI, a re-named form of the Learning Modalities, the Human Needs put forth by Tony Robbins, plus an original system of “animals” based on their own research of watching animal documentaries. Additionally, there is a strong influence of narratology, specifically the Hero’s Journey, and the system heavily cites life coaches like Robbins (among others) as a way to direct people to improve their lives.
One of the distinctive features of the OP system is the sheer number of types that people may be classified under. The creators have divided human personality into a whopping 512 different types, by specifying nine distinct axes (“Binary Coins”) that a person will fall on one end or the other. Taken together, the results define the specific type that a subject falls in. This is a vastly greater distinction than other contemporary systems, like MBTI or Socionics (16), Cognitive Typology (64), and so on.
In order to reach a typology determination, two trained “operators” each separately watch an hour-long videotaped interview of a subject answering prepared questions. Operators are looking for evidence that hint at a person’s underlying type, which they will use to fill out a complex checklist. At the end of the session, operators compare results. Dave and Shannon claim to achieve greater than 90% agreement at this step, and the result is given to the user. It is believed that the separate typing process by operators leads to an “objective” outcome — that the operators provide a check against one another and rule out any operator bias.
In addition to the website and class materials provided by the creators, numerous unofficial outlets exist for discussing OP theory and practice. There is a dedicated subreddit (of course), as well as a Facebook group open for anyone to join and discuss, and another that is specifically set aside for class members.
I had the opportunity to review the class library and video materials for a period of about six months, as well as to discuss the theory with members of both Facebook groups during this time. Initially, I had high hopes for the system: the site makes bold claims, and there does seem to be quite a lot of effort put into it. Unfortunately, in the end I have determined that the Objective Personality system does not live up to the claims made by its creators: it is not “objective” nor “scientific”, it does not correctly build upon the sources it claims to use, it is needlessly complex and self-contradictory, poorly defined and badly taught. Most frustrating of all, the creators have apparently decided to steer the course away from resolving these problems, and instead towards a goal of using the flawed system to brand themselves as self-help gurus.
I cannot recommend the system. What follows is a detailed breakdown of my criticisms.
Objective and Subjective
First off, it’s important to determine exactly what is meant by “objective” in “Objective Personality”. Dave and Shannon have evidently spent a lot of time frustrated with the proliferation of online MBTI tests and faulty self-typing methods. Their disdain for these pop-science artifacts permeates all their literature and videos. They love to hate on MBTI.
Hence, the core tenet of Objective Personality is a reactionary definition that “you cannot type yourself”. That is exactly what they mean by “objective” and no further: any attempt to type yourself is inherently “subjective”, thus you must be typed by an unbiased observer to achieve “objective” results. (Dave is fond of saying that they are just going to tell you what your friends and family are saying already.)
This is the complete and total meaning of “objective” in their system. All other meanings of “objective” (unbiased, scientific, measurable via absolute methods) are not a priority at all — if that’s what you signed up for, prepare for major disappointment. Perhaps the most telling indicator of their misunderstanding of the terms is this table, taken directly from the website. The definitions given are completely incorrect, and simply don’t make sense:
D&S are careful to claim that their system is in “beta” state, like one might declare an early access tech product — it is not yet in its final form. When it’s “ready”, the creators state that they will take the system to “the Scientific Community”. It is unclear what they think the scientific community actually is, because it’s always spoken of as though it is some shadowy organization of men in white robes. Regardless, what they are doing is definitely Not Science.
What’s Science?
D&S conduct “observations” of a typing subject. To do this, they will pull up a number of YouTube videos, watch them, and attempt to discern a type. This activity mimics double-blind testing, but it is not: the operators are not “blind”, instead having been pre-trained considerably to achieve a desired outcome.
Further, the observations carried out are not scientific. The operator’s job is specifically NOT to note factual behaviors or statements made by the subject: instead, they must attempt to divine the motivation behind each statement or action. So, for example, if the subject says “I do a lot of crossword puzzles, it helps my mind work” they do not write down “engages in puzzle-solving frequently”… instead, they will use their own interpretation to note something like “uses puzzles to create order and avoid a chaotic world”. From these interpretations a final type is constructed.
It is a strange attempt at behaviorism-but-not: intense focus is placed on observing a subject (to the point that they will not assign a type from biographies, fiction, audio recordings, or anything they cannot watch a video of), yet all the “observations” have nothing to do with what is actually occurring on screen. In short, it is mind-reading.
Further, they actively disregard any self-input from the subject — in fact, if the user voices what they think their type is, this appears to automatically bias them to rule against it (see peacocking below), because the subject “clearly” is trying to project something they’re not. Of course, self-reporting is a widely used method for conducting scientific research in a number of fields, including psychology. Denouncing it as worse-than-useless shows a distinct lack of understanding of scientific experiment and data collection.
The attempt to get two operators to agree on a final type is an interesting twist. Scientifically, this would be considered highly “accurate,” but not at all “valid”. One could create a test with a higher degree of accuracy by simply asking operators to note the color of the shirt that the subject is wearing. This obviously proves nothing at all. The only thing OP has done is to take the shirt-color test and make it much “harder”, by forcing operators to inject interpretive bias in a specifically trained manner. It doesn’t necessarily make the test any “better”.
Another strike against the system is that it has produced no whitepapers, no journal articles, no essays, and very little scientific writing of any kind. There is no standardized test for OP. One group member’s attempt to create a Wikipedia article was summarily deleted for lacking notability. D&S instead focus their attention on creating more videos, and trying to recruit people to their Operator Training. None of this seems likely to move the ball forward into the realm of scientific acceptance.
As time moves on they have become increasingly sloppy in application of their own observing techniques. On their website, they prominently note a correlation between certain types and certain physical characteristics — but are quick to point out that “correlation is not causation”. Recently they have taken to using anecdotes directly (with the caveat that “it’s okay, because we are the experts”) — for example, saying that one man has feminine expression of a particular function because “he sometimes wears a dress” in his stage act. There is a definite lack of rigor in their application of the system.
Occam’s Razor
D&S make frequent claims that the system is “open for peer review”. But this isn’t actually true. The avenue used for submitting feedback is via a class Q&A process. Over time this has been drastically scaled back, limiting the length of emails that will be answered and the number of questions that can be asked. When a question is taken up for video response, it seems D&S either do not understand the criticisms, or come up with some way to deflect: rather than improve the system, they improvise some way in which it’s already solved.
For example: D&S have taken to using the so-called Grant Stack to organize Jung’s functions in a type. Under this system, an introverted function MUST follow an extroverted one in order. An ordering of “Ti, Ne, Si, Fe” is valid, while “Ti, Si, Ne, Fe” is considered invalid.
However, they go on to add the notion of “Jumpers”. This is a person who “jumps” over their second function and engages by using the third function. So, while their stack is “Ti, Ne, Si, Fe”, they may “jump” Ti -> Si, then Ne Fe… effectively, the second (invalid) stack above. In reviewing the published typings, they strike approximately a 50/50 balance between Jumper and Not-Jumper.
In other words, they have taken a concept into their system (Grant Stack), then added an additional concept (Jumper) specifically to undo the limitations of the first concept! Attempts to point this out by Q&A lead to them denying use of the Grant Stack entirely, despite the fact that all published types and class material specifically restricts the placement of two introverted or two extroverted functions one after the other.
The entire system is built like this: just a massive conglomeration of ideas, leading to a pile of disparate parts bolted together that is OP. It seems as though D&S are unwilling to remove parts of their system that don’t stand up to scrutiny. Instead, the solution to a problem is to simply add another layer, in the hope that the newly inserted thinking explains everything wrong with the old system.
The peak example of this accretion of ideas is D&S’ original development of the “animals”. These are intended to explain how a personality type is expressed in the outside world. This classification was developed by D&S watching nature documentaries and observing how chimps interacted with their groups.
Putting aside the highly questionable application of animal behavior directly to human cognition (including use of primitivist terms like “tribe”): this additional layer combines two functions together, forming a new set of axes that further divides personality. None of this is underpinned by scientific resource or citing of sources. It is not clearly shown that these animals are somehow distinct from the underlying functions that they group together. It’s not even clear why the animals are needed in the first place. Still, it forms a now-inextricable part of the system.
Peacocking, Alpha State, Hero’s Journey
OP introduces some new terms to their system that distinguish it from other traditional typology schools. Each of these was clearly intended to explain some fault in a simpler system, but they bring their own share of problems as well.
Peacocking
“Peacocking” is a term which means, roughly, acting in a way which is not indicative of your “true” personality. The term has been somewhat vague and led to much discussion in the Facebook groups — culminating in a Q&A that actually did little to answer it.
The way this is explained is via a hypothetical person who claims “I’m so good at organizing things!” when his schedule is actually a constant mess. He may be claiming this to appear competent or avoid shame… or maybe he recounts the one time he successfully organized a party, and so incorrectly extrapolates this experience to cover more of his life.
D&S use Peacocking largely as another way to tear down the “subjective” MBTI self-typing and self-test. They state that people will lie on self-assessments to make themselves look or feel better. Further, they claim to be able to see through it. This ability hinges on various informal lie-detecting techniques that have been largely disproven. Still, they claim to have this power and rely on it in some of their videos.
The darker read on this is that Peacocking is a way for D&S to cover their butts in the case of incorrect typing. It is a core part of the system, and so they can always say “We WOULD have typed you correctly, except that you were/are peacocking XYZ, and that misled us.”
Alpha State
D&S acknowledge that our functions exist in a natural imbalance: some are more prominent, or exercised more frequently, than others. They further state that a path to self-improvement is to work on the weaker functions to become more comfortable and familiar with them.
Achieving a good balance is then termed “Alpha State”. Parallels to the use of “alpha” in PUA or Redpill communities are not lost on this author… Another way they refer to it is “growth mindset”. These are people who are effectively “firing on all cylinders”, successful in life and well-balanced in personality.
There are problems here too: first, it’s not clear whether Alpha is intended to apply to a person, or a mental state. Once someone has been called Alpha by D&S, they do not rescind it. So is it akin to achieving Zen, or becoming a Zen Master?
The other problem is that the definition is woefully lopsided, in favor of Dave and Shannon’s personal preference for what Alpha looks like. Currently, it looks a lot like successful businesspeople, or YouTube self-help gurus. Steve Jobs is Alpha, so is Tony Robbins, Jordan Peterson, and a handful of others. You must be a business winner or a motivational speaker to appear on their radar. They have not, as of this writing, revealed any female Alphas.
Other Terms
The system has a chronic problem with terminology. In many cases, it appears they have lifted a concept from another system, but given their own name to it. Sometimes they also tweak the definition, but other times they don’t, and so it is a constant source of frustration in the communities to figure out what exactly they mean. There are no written guides for any of this. All information for the class is presented in disorganized video clips, leading people to piece together definitions from “a video I saw two weeks ago” rather than e.g. a glossary webpage.
One glaring example of terminology confusion centers around the meaning of Jung’s functions. While D&S prominently claim to “track Jungian functions” and build upon his work, they appear to actually have a misunderstanding of the role functions play in personality. They talk frequently of Ni and Si being used to “organize information”, when it has nothing to do with that. (Ni and Si are observational functions and have nothing to do with organization). The failure to understand or explain even the most basic fundamental concepts of the system does not instill much confidence in the stability of the higher layers.
Those Who Can’t Teach
As mentioned before, Dave and Shannon run a typing class for paying customers. They produce regular video content in which they answer questions, provide exercises for typing YouTube personalities and celebrities, and offer additional self-help quips.
The videos are well-produced, generally showing D&S in their sound-padded room talking about a subject. They are edited to remove awkward pauses and filler words. (Many people are familiar with D&S through Dave’s YouTube channel, DaveSuperpowers. The videos there are decorated with visual aids to help explain the concepts. There is little of that here — just the talking heads, and the occasional Google Doc being updated in real-time.)
The primary problem with the video lessons is that they lack professionalism. D&S present their content in a half-conversational, half-aggressive manner. They curse frequently: the videos are constantly peppered with F-bombs, trying to amp up the impact of their words with more and more profanity. They take many potshots at MBTI, and poke fun at each type in turn. The subjects are treated with great disrespect.
Multiple members of the group have taken issue with the presentation style. For as much as D&S complain about stereotypes in typology communities, they are quite willing to sling them when it serves a joke. It extends beyond the class, too: more than one person has unhappily shared their response video (which they received as part of the paid typing service) which included D&S making jokes and insulting their customer!
Most of this is probably an act. Students who have interacted with them directly — via phone calls or Q&A emails — point out that they are actually very kind and approachable. For whatever reason, D&S find it more appropriate to play the role of the macho Cool Teachers instead of the calm instructive ones for their videos. It does nothing to help impart the material to the students, but maybe it gets more views on YouTube.
There is real no structure to the “class” — there are no lesson plans and there are very few reference materials. The “library” is just a huge disorganized dump of video lessons. They do not appear to have interest in improving the pedagogy at all. Instead, they seem to want to use the class as a feeder system for bringing more Operators into their organization. Evidently they expect the most dedicated students to work out what the system is really about, and then take those members in to help type others.
Operator training itself is shrouded in mystery, but the hints D&S have given make it sound more like military boot-camp (or a cult) than a psychology training course.
Help Yourself
All told, there are considerable gaps and inaccuracies with the system. However, a rather telling event occurred about three months into my study of their system: D&S announced, via video, that they were going to change direction of the course away from the typology system and towards their particular brand of self-help. The typology is given a back seat, as a way to get people into the system: once you are typed, then you know your worst aspects. Then, watch a lot of videos about how to improve those aspects, and finally achieve Alpha State.
This change in direction was extremely disheartening for many of the class members (myself included) who signed on for the “scientific” claims, and the interest in alternative typology systems. Rather than attempting to fix any of the raised issues, D&S simply decided their time would be better spent following the footsteps of the self-help gurus they seem to admire so much.
The new direction has also led to some really bizarre videos. In one, Dave “discovers” the concept of brainwashing (via an article a friend passed to him about how rescued POWs come back with altered beliefs instilled by their captors). He then goes on to ask “Okay, so, how can you use the idea and methods of brainwashing to improve your own life?” followed by don’t-try-this-at-home advice to use self-punishment (say, sleep deprivation) when you don’t meet a deadline. In another overly “profound” video, D&S mention that they finally cracked the code to regular exercise: you can do it at home, you don’t need to go to the gym after all!
A frequent source of unintentional humor comes from the fascination with the Hero’s Journey. D&S constantly mention the need to “go through Hell” in the path to self-improvement. However, their personal stories of tragedy and overcoming are just not compelling in the least — Dave mentions the horror of having to live in an upstairs apartment, and Shannon talks about her propensity to go for walks in the dark. Both presented as profound events, in the same manner that one might talk about losing both parents at an early age, or enduring years of abuse, or gambling away your life savings in Vegas and going homeless as the ultimate wake-up call.
D&S frequently acts as though self-improvement is going to be an incredibly harrowing experience, saying things like “your friends and family will HATE YOU for trying to do something different” when making the conscious choice to do the dishes. Or, “You will literally DESTROY YOURSELF if you find out your real type.” It’s a dramatic take on social dynamics that most won’t relate to at all.
D&S seem to be pitching towards exactly one small demographic here: white male 20-somethings, directionless and confused, trying to balance changing roles and shifting peer groups. Those are the group most likely to latch on to the brash and edgy communication style.
Perhaps it’s not fair of me to place judgment on their personal struggles, or look down on the attempts to share their hard-earned wisdom with viewers. After all, I don’t know their whole story. And, really, I think D&S genuinely want to help others with the things they say — not just attempting to ride the wave of “clean your room” advice superstars. This part of their series is in the early stages, and maybe their delivery of self-help will be more coherent as they practice and refine it.
Regardless, this isn’t what many of us signed up for.
Arguing with Results
Some of the Facebook group members, on encountering discussions of one or more of these criticisms, come up with a response: “Well, I got typed by them, and they were absolutely right on! I’ve tried applying their self-help ideas, and it had a really amazing impact on my life! So, clearly they’re on to something… you can’t argue with their results, right?”
Well… there’s a number of problems with this statement. First, people who are paying for the service are going to be more inclined to agree with (or give credence to) the results. The act of paying money both raises the stature of D&S, and makes people more invested in getting something out of it. I’ll point to one of Dave’s favorite psychological effects here: perhaps they are paying victims of the Barnum Effect?
Second, anyone willing to go through the hoops to get typed (currently: be a class member for 2 months, get yourself on the schedule and wait your turn, record an hour-long video of yourself answering personal questions, and pay for it) is most likely already pursuing an interest in self-improvement and typology. They will have engaged in the deep introspection necessary to accurately assess their own type, and present that face to others. This makes D&S’ job rather easy. Unsurprisingly, the subject is probably also aware of their shortcomings by now, and approaching the topic with “growth mindset”.
Finally, yes: they may well be correct in assessing someone’s type. The systems D&S have combined together to create OP do have merit on their own, and they have put considerable effort into studying those sources. So it is reasonable that anyone dedicated to typology is going to be able to nail the first and second functions. That is close enough for the subjects to see themselves.
A Personal Plea
It is undoubtedly tempting, when designing a new typology system, to add “just one more” layer of distinction to explain why two people with the same type continue to behave differently. It seems creators of such systems feel that if they can create pigeonholes specific enough, then people should neatly fall into them, and so everyone in the same box would be indistinguishable. As each individual difference presents itself, the creator will divide each box in half and try to sort them further.
Jung initially described eight types (Ti, Fi, Te, Fe, Ni, Si, Ne Se); Meyers-Briggs and Socionics both expanded these types to 16. There are 32- and 64-type systems. OP takes it to an extreme of 512. The problem with such an approach is that humans are inherently complex individuals. We know, for example, that even one of the most basic classifiers — “male” and “female” — is not a strict M/F binary. It is simply impossible to type someone reliably on a nine-dimensional system. Once you get beyond the most prominent classifiers, there is simply too much noise to pick out a signal. What the subject ate for breakfast will certainly be far more influential than, say, a seventh-order function. Even Jung expressed difficulty with simply eight, stating that people with an exaggerated primary function were caricatures, not real-life people.
My personal plea to those interested in typology is to resist adding additional classifiers, axis, “binary coins”, “dichotomies” or whatever they may be called. Instead, perhaps it would be best to build a system in the opposite direction: more inclusive, more general, more realistic.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Kassi Kennedy and Shannon Young for allowing me to bounce ideas off and proofread this document. And I am also extremely grateful to the Facebook group members who put up with my griping for the past several months. I’m done, I swear :)
