Objective Personality

[wolly.green]

Are any of you familiar with https://www.objectivepersonality.com? What are your thoughts on their content? I've been taking their online course and really like their interpretation of personality theory. But in particular, their criticism of 'function loops'? Their rejection of function loops is what distinguishes them from other interpretations.

 

[souvenir]

I wasn't familiar until now. Very interesting. I don't have time to type all my thoughts but quickly what screamed out at me from browsing is that I disagree with these statements: The controlling person can’t hide the fact that they fear chaos. The selfish person can't hide that they fear tribe retaliation. The factual person can’t hide that they disrespect the abstract. The feminine person can’t hide that they are not masculine, etc.

I'm interested enough to want have them video type me, though. I'm thinking of doing it this week. Thank you for sharing this!

 

[Wyote]

I very much agree with the Saviors and Demons concept and I think this is a good development in typing, though still not without the need for some more work of course.
I don't know that I agree with the whole "512" personalities since you can really just keep dividing infinitely. It's better to look at it as a spectrum, and I think what it gets at is the idea of examining your own type within its own spectrum which is a good idea in my mind.

Also I love the dude's youtube stuff.

 

[wolly.green]

I very much agree with the Saviors and Demons concept and I think this is a good development in typing, though still not without the need for some more work of course.
I don't know that I agree with the whole "512" personalities since you can really just keep dividing infinitely. It's better to look at it as a spectrum, and I think what it gets at is the idea of examining your own type within its own spectrum which is a good idea in my mind.

Also I love the dude's youtube stuff.

Spectrum's don't work in this particular framework. Functions are not pitted against each into dichotomies like with Big Five. Rather, they are used and described in conjunction with other functions. A personality profile is like mosaic of these 'function pieces', assembled together in a particular way. Although a spectrum might work with dichotomies, how would that work here?

 

[Wyote]

Spectrum's don't work in this particular framework. Functions are not pitted against each into dichotomies like with Big Five. Rather, they are used and described in conjunction with other functions. A personality profile is like mosaic of these 'function pieces', assembled together in a particular way. Although a spectrum might work with dichotomies, how would that work here?

If you're just looking at personality in exclusively a dichotomous way then you aren't accounting for a lot of subtlety. The functions themselves can be viewed as a spectrum individually while observing the dichotomous nature of the interplay between the functions.

 

[Wyote]

What I mean is, there's a spectrum that can be created in comparing functions because functions themselves are spectrums. Just because you mash up all the functions relationships doesn't mean you've accounted for all the variability.

 

[charlatan]

Not familiar, but just in general on function loops -- I think that too much is said of over-reliance on your top and third (loops) and too little on just over-reliance on the topmost.

I think the reason people don't hit on this is that they'd think functions generally pair together, so that over-reliance on a single one is rare, right? But the subtler interpretation of over-reliance on a single function is actually that the secondary/third ones can operate with so little autonomy that they don't offer a good complement.

A simple example of F that isn't "really" F (due to chronically low autonomy) is simply valuing pleasant sensations. You could imagine this as a F that's totally subordinate to S.

In the same way, I notice when I'm on overdrive with Ne, I'm unlikely to really develop out the view's entire logic, and sort of say "yeah yeah, I get the idea, let's jump to something new!"

 

[wolly.green]

If you're just looking at personality in exclusively a dichotomous way then you aren't accounting for a lot of subtlety. The functions themselves can be viewed as a spectrum individually while observing the dichotomous nature of the interplay between the functions.

That's exactly what this system does. Which is one of the reasons I was interested in everyones opiniond

 

[Wyote]

That's exactly what this system does. Which is one of the reasons I was interested in everyones opiniond

Ok, it looked to me like they just extrapolated dichotomies but I haven't delved deeply into it.

 

[wolly.green]

Not familiar, but just in general on function loops -- I think that too much is said of over-reliance on your top and third (loops) and too little on just over-reliance on the topmost.

I think the reason people don't hit on this is that they'd think functions generally pair together, so that over-reliance on a single one is rare, right? But the subtler interpretation of over-reliance on a single function is actually that the secondary/third ones can operate with so little autonomy that they don't offer a good complement.

A simple example of F that isn't "really" F (due to chronically low autonomy) is simply valuing pleasant sensations. You could imagine this as a F that's totally subordinate to S.

In the same way, I notice when I'm on overdrive with Ne, I'm unlikely to really develop out the view's entire logic, and sort of say "yeah yeah, I get the idea, let's jump to something new!"

Could you please elaborate on this? I'm not sure what you mean?

 

[charlatan]

Could you please elaborate on this? I'm not sure what you mean?

Sure; well first of all, I don't claim my reason for worrying people over-rely on the loops idea is the same as the site's.

But anyway, loops are basically the idea that sometimes since the dom/tertiary are in the same attitude (both introverted, both extraverted), you might over-rely on that pairing at the expense of the auxiliary.

While that isn't impossible by any means, I think there's another option for how auxiliary-avoidance happens, namely over-reliance on the dominant. And my point was that people seem to overlook this mostly because they don't consider it a serious option. Their reasoning is "well, we naturally tend to function-pairings with one rational, one irrational function each" typically at least -- so they don't seriously consider the idea that you might over-rely on a single one.

My point was that you can over-rely on a single one without ever being fully exclusive to it -- this is the subtle point that a second function could technically be at work, without adding anything to the first, as it might be more or less pander to the worldview the first would have one endorse if one did in fact turn to it exclusively. As example, I offered a bastardized F, which is supposed to be about value-judgment -- if one were very simplistic about F in a way that basically conflated it with sensation, it might for example amount to associating positive valuation simply with pleasant sensations and negative valuation with unpleasant ones, without the further reflection required for a deeper value judgment.

 

[Ren]

Not familiar, but just in general on function loops -- I think that too much is said of over-reliance on your top and third (loops) and too little on just over-reliance on the topmost (...) In the same way, I notice when I'm on overdrive with Ne, I'm unlikely to really develop out the view's entire logic, and sort of say "yeah yeah, I get the idea, let's jump to something new!"

That's an interesting point, actually, and one that I think I can relate to. Let’s say I’m trying to develop a particular philosophical viewpoint in my writings. With Ni I’ll sort of quickly have the pattern (or patterns) abstractly in view; I’ll know intuitively where I’m going and where I want to get to. But it becomes much tougher to actually lay it down and connect everything logically on paper, even though the logic is intuitively clear to me. Often I’ll just know my framework is systematic but I’ll struggle to flesh it out with clarity on paper for the sake of other people reading my writings.

So I'll be telling my friends "But how can you say it's difficult to understand!" when in fact I haven't used Ti enough to make the logic understandable for them.