Jack Aaron: Objective Personality Has Problems Timecodes

(2:50) A good number of similarities between the systems: I’m typed the same in the two systems, different things they’ve found but assigned to different areas

(4:00) points of contention: the “objectivity”, it always seemed contentious, not a problem with the attempt at an objective methodology (cross-checks, typing in different rooms, attempt to put together a system of coins), but this isn’t intrinsic to OP over other typologies, is the theoretical infrastructure of OP really objective? It needs to be questioned in terms of objectivity and seems less objective than claimed (theoretical background using Jungian terminology and volunteering terms to describe concepts like self vs tribe and organizing vs taking in).  If you are being truly objective, you have to do the big five route and do factor analysis, see how concepts actually line up in reality through the lexical method.  That’s not flawless since language use can be flawed, but it’s close to objective as possible.  In having all this terminology, OP is on as subjective of a footing as any other typology system.

(6:45) Only difference is that there’s less of a route or link to commonly recognized types and themes which Socionics has an advantage in (archetypes, stock characters, ways of looking at people). Example of SEIish/LIEish stereotypes, fiction is a distilled version of the real life of what we’ve come to collectively accept, Socionics has an edge because it takes its observations from these stock characters and archetypes as well as observations of people, e.g. Aushra wanted to understand her husband (Benefactor).  OP is on a similar footing in using observation without any sort of factor analysis

(10:00) If Objective personality is going to be objective, it really ought to have peer review journal article, have a clear methodology, run tests with statistics and submit those to a journal where it will get peer reviewed, Binyamin dismissed this rather quickly and OP group seems to have some hostility to the ideas of peer review.  Peer review is not a cure all, but it is an important first step, otherwise the only reason to say its objective is putting your trust in the abilities of Dave and Shannon to conduct these experiments with uncanny accuracy, that’s not impossible but it rightfully attracts skepticism and questioning, you can say you have some process for typing but we’re talking about the concepts themselves, what did you do to put together these concepts and find them showing up objectively in some sort of reality, they would have nothing to show for it if asked that (no data, no studies, no peer review), the objectivity is true in that its trying to be more objective in its methodology for trying to work out a type which is admirable, but it’s not objective yet, Socionics has many tens of different schools so it’s harder to coordinate these diagnostics or treat Socionics as a monolith whereas you could treat OP as a monolith

(13:10) Another point: you’re using these coins to type in OP, Double Decider/Single Observer or Double Observer/Single Decider, then is it extroverted judging or introverted judging (tribe or self).  Tribe and self makes me lost.  You have to work out tribe or self before you work out whether it is thinking or feeling.  Something which Te/Fe have in common is always the Tribe.  Tribe is a collection of group, a group mentality, Jungian typologies would clearly apply this to Fe but not Te, a lot of typologies say Te is more independent and not about people but facts and what works and you can go against public opinion.  You need a strong argument for why Te should be just as Tribe as Fe, and no one has a strong answer for this.  Binyamin says if you talk to them they say they want to do what works the best and what works the best is what works the best for society, but that’s a big leap.  Nothing about the Jungian concepts of Te has anything to do with Tribe unless you define the tribe completely differently (a tribe of factual processes isn’t people so why call it tribe?).  This is the second coin in the typing process (tribe/self), but only clearly applies to Fe, the only way you can try to make it apply is to make some very forced and stilted argument

(19:00) Dave and Shannon have a 90% inter-reliability rating, which is good, but Pod’Lair had that, cognitive type had that, reliability is not the same as having structures and terminologies which represent the salient characteristics of personality type, all it tells you is that they are seeing something but it doesn’t necessarily have a salient characteristic of personality, it could be meaningless for determining some kind of Jungian type, this use of Tribe leaves a lot questions and since it seems faulty as a process to include as a main coin but also shows the flaw in having coins, coins require the most reliable and fullproof methodologies right at the front (if you can question it then it’s not a good coin to have at the front),  in Socionics we do use these sorts of coins, for WSS we use Quadras as our first coins,

(21:00) the reason that we use that over temperaments is because temperaments are place holders for cognitive functions which have the meat of meaning and content and connect up to all these different archetypes in our shared fictions, why go to the placeholders first, you’re attributing meaning to empty vessels, all we can say for EJ for example is that it is Rational and Dynamic, it doesn’t necessarily work to describe those, lots of shoulds going on for example but isn’t very particular, it only comes to life when you start using the information elements, Fe is about emotional energy, raising and amplifying emotional states, Te is about cutting out the emotionality, going to the facts, seeing what is practical, what actually works and realistically conveys the facts of how things actually turned out (they are opposites), you should emphasize how they are different not similar, now that is me criticizing it from my own point of view which isn’t always very good

(23:40) people typed as Te in the group weren’t showing signs of the more fact oriented, pragmatic side, but focusing on the tribe element and more about doing things for the sake of others, so people are typed based on tribeness rather than something more independently recognizable as Te

(24:20) how do you determine what is reasons and what is values, you’ve already made it all about tribe, but is a tribal reason versus a tribal value, thinking is what’s already explicit rather than implicit and doesn’t require interpretation and is grounded in the facts, values or feeling is more sentimental, and this sentimentality vs fact oriented should be the clear difference, once you make it about tribe and people they share feelings easily (emotional contagion) but not facts which are accumulated on an individual basis, so thinking is not a flow that sweeps up a whole population at once and thus isn’t designed to be tribe

(25:40) also implies Ti and fi are about self not tribe, and that is hard to imagine.  If you think out some logically constructed system, that you are only keeping it for yourself and not thinking of how it can benefit other people, how about the Zarathustras of the world who come down from the mountain after thinking to share their wisdom with the world (isn’t that tribish), it’s peculiar and opens up questions

(26:25) “Organizing”: introverted observation, it implies a need for certain structure, when you organize you are not just limiting your scope (I think filtering is more accurate for introverted perception), when you organize you are applying a schema to put in some sort of order.  If your word for perception is observing rather than deciding, why use a term like organizing of observations which is about making decisions about where things should go.  It leads to a contradiction and can be very confusing.  Leads to weird meanings for other cognitive functions like Si, Socionics Si is more about harmony and taking in and being satisfied the sensory experiences, refining the experiences to be enjoyable, convenient, smooth running, minimal waste of resources, rooted in day to day, in OP it is about MEANING, what has come before in some way, one’s set organization of facts, the word meaning is confusing, it is more abstract and goes beyond the day to day and is some sort of why behind the what (what vs why), it suggests that they’ve arrived at arcane definitions of different cognitive which don’t make much internal sense and don’t match up with collectively recognized archetypes very well.  Binyamin says it is how we’ve observed things to work and he says that a lot, but I’ve observed it to work very differently so it’s contentious, it could be that we have certain schema in our head and we are seeing things the way we want to see them, but for me I can look at collectively recognized archetypes and stock characters and say you can see this going on, that makes more sense than observing something completely counter-intuitive, I think my understanding has more humility, I question why I have to think I’ve observed reality in a way that is right and true, the whole reason we have peer review is that is corrects our perceptions and difficulty with objectivity, 2 and 3 people is not enough and you can also have group bias, you need people not part of your group to cross-check

(32:00) feminine vs masculine, one is more like Trump or Mike Tyson dominant and assertive, but feminine Se is always budging and changing its mind and giving in to other people’s input, opposite behaviors are Se, it could be that they are just covering up a weird typing by making it less empirically falsifiable by adding more distinctions like astrology and natal charts.  If you have a top function that you see the world through and is most important in your life, you’d think it’d be what they describe as masculine, it’s counterintuitive for the leading to be feminine and have your mind made up by others, you end up typing them this way is because it’s not about strength, there is some truth to the idea that psychological asymmetry is going to make you weak in places but not in Te if that’s your dominant (rather Fi), so why are female versions of leading cognitive which are so malleable and able to be changed and dominated, it is very confusing.  Socionics explains this in a more straight-forward way: if you are an Fi type, then your Te is far less confident, so you are far more suggestible and malleable on Te (more flexible and contact).  It makes sense of duality, your dual makes you more decisive in this area.  These feminine leading functions which are suggestible and subordinate sounds pathetic and I feel sorry for it.  I think they really have a strength, but it made their weaker area what they are all about and burying what they are all about.  Typology which brings out and recognizes strengths makes more sense and I like it more

(39:20) If you can make a strong enough argument for objective personality and have it answer questions that socionics is unable to answer, that is when I’d be willing to give up Socionics or find a middle theory that has the best of both and is internally consistent