Another group that's actually taking the question of type seriously. This makes me happy. Firstly, because Dave seems to have a serious acknowledgement of how hard this problem really is, and what it takes to try to objectify a methodology. I relate a lot to his struggles, as expressed in the above video but also in his series of videos up now on his channel: www.youtube.com/user/DaveSuperPowers/videos
One of the most exciting things I am seeing is a move toward the energetic quadrant (Je/Ji/Pe/Pi) direction. Which I think is inevitable once you start to get closer to the reality.
They like to use the terms:
Organize/Consistency = Pi Worldview Identity/Self = Ji Compass Tribe/Validation = Je Articulator Gather/Variety = Pe Explorer
As with chuck 's channel recently, it's great to see convergence of opinion.
If anyone is fresh out of the MBTI pot, and wants a quick initial purging of misconceptions... ...I'd recommend these videos too. I'd bet $20 that Dave is a Te-lead (and $5 more that he's TeSi-Ne), and he's got that classic no-bullshit approach.
He also doesn't aggrandize the functions with a long list of associated behaviors to each, but simply cuts right to the metabolism - at least in the way he understands it. Which I could nitpick at but.. it's not too bad.
Can't say I agree with everything he says, but it certainly is a fresh take.
I think we all agree that there needs to be a better way of typing people. I personally use speech patterns that I can pick up on very quickly just by hearing voice, and I have a video exploring that on my channel. Kind of like what is done here with vultology, but quicker and more intuitive. Also much less based in observable things that you can point to and emphasize with drawing shapes and whatnot, but rather in the overall feel of a person's mannerisms. I don't really have any results to use to prove to Dave (or anyone else) that it actually works, or that there are truly 16 distinct speech patterns out there, but 5 seconds into my first Michael Pierce video, I was absolutely convinced he was INFJ, without having any previous exposure to him. And it turns out I was right. And I have been right so far about every other person I've instantly decided was not INFJ.
Another thing I have suggested is an innovated form of "the test" that actually tests the ability of people to use the cognitive functions. For example, it would show a complex photo, make it disappear after a period of time, them ask the person to recall as many details about the photo as possible via checkbox selection or something in order to test Si.
It's interesting to see how a Ti dom, an Ni dom, and a (probable) Te dom all see the same problems, but go about fixing it in different, but similar ways.
You've got one guy who uses concrete facial patterns, one guy who uses intuitive speech patterns, and one guy who wants to sit down with the person for several hours.
I'd say Ni and Ti win as far as marketability is concerned, but again, it's interesting to see how the three functions all work towards the same goal in different ways.
"We all ride upon the waves of life, towards the expanse of death, through the nature of beauty. So ride, ride hard, ride towards death with a victory unconquerable. Lash out away from life as does the wind in a sail. Ride on, ride on, into the ceasing of the darkness! Ride into the shelter, seek justice in the beauty, seek power in the life."
Yes, i have a few terminology issues with his vids too but overall... it's not too bad.
I think we need more people like this really dedicating time to objectively measure type - and for these researchers to be open with each other. Kinda like how science works, where we share results and refine methodologies. I'd love it if someone created a sort of committee for the objective investigation of type, composed of people like Dave, Michael Pierce, you, us, etc. I like to see what people come up with. And hey, if something proves faulty, then we try anew.
^ But one problem with even what I just said is that it's very tilted towards the Si+Te epistemology. Ni-leads like yourself and Piece work best by examining information holistically rather than breaking it down into itty-bitty bits. It's not only exhaustive, but it often misses the nuance when it gets reduced. And I actually respect that a lot -- which is why I believe that "knowledge" is synthesized by humans roughly as both quantitative (S) and qualitative (N). Both are valid and needed, and leaving out either of the two creates fallacy. It's a monumental feat for a high-N user to integrate their S dimension, but that's what's necessary in order to see the phenomenon fully and not fool themselves. Unfortunately we can't avoid it.
Another thing I have suggested is an innovated form of "the test" that actually tests the ability of people to use the cognitive functions. For example, it would show a complex photo, make it disappear after a period of time, them ask the person to recall as many details about the photo as possible via checkbox selection or something in order to test Si.
Huh! I like how you're thinking of this overall, but the problem with this is that it still relies on competence, or 'skill' ..no? If we decide to define types by skills or competence, that's fine... but then we'd get something like a multiple intelligence test.
We'd mistype those who may be Si-leads but have poor visual registration skills.
For that matter, Dave is probably going to mistype people who don't have the "achille's heel" complex he's ascribing to the polar/4th function. Some Fe-leads have no problems of identity or insecurity there. That's tapping more into psychological complexes, and if that's what he's using to measure type, he's going to get a few other types mixed in as well. Also, his understasnding of Fe also seems to just be coming from the light/adaptive side.
"Huh! I like how you're thinking of this overall, but the problem with this is that it still relies on competence, or 'skill' ..no?
If we decide to define types by skills or competence, that's fine... but then we'd get something like a multiple intelligence test."
This is assuming that the test would rate the person's type on a "1-100%"-like spectrum only, requiring say a 75-100% score in visual/auditory recollection to be typed as an Si dom. As you say, this wouldn't work simply because competence, or one's overall cognitive aptitude, is analog and highly variable. Such a test therefore would need to have an analog style algorithm as well, adding a weighing system to the scoring system. So instead of scoring someone solely on the digital indicator of 1-100% and defining digital parameters, it would instead go a step further and rate those digital "scores" against each other to asses which are strongest and which are weakest.
So in other words, a slower person receiving only 37% on the Si section could still be typed as an Si dom if his scores in all the other sections were lower than 37%.
A really dumb INFJ might have a really hard time understanding an Ni monologue, but chances are, his overall stupidity would equally affect his other functions.
It's basically the difference between changing the overall brightness of an image and changing the RGB values, the blacks, whites, midtones, highlights, and shadows. The brightness control (competence) effects all those other listed parameters equally; thus, not changing the outcome of the type indicator test, which would analyze how the midtones relate to the shadows, how the red channel relates to the blue channel, etc.
So an Si lead would very likely score very strongly in a memory test, while the INFJ would likely fail miserably. But the test would have that algorithm that says, "Ok, we have all these digital scores, now let's see which is highest. If the Si section is highest and the Ni section is really low, it's gotta be an ISFJ or ISTJ, but it could also be an ESFJ or ENTJ, so it would look at the other functions as well of course.
There is a test already out there that kind of does this, but instead of actually being a true test, it is an opinion survey, like all the others, asking things like, "Do you do this or that", instead of testing their ability to actually use the functions.
"We all ride upon the waves of life, towards the expanse of death, through the nature of beauty. So ride, ride hard, ride towards death with a victory unconquerable. Lash out away from life as does the wind in a sail. Ride on, ride on, into the ceasing of the darkness! Ride into the shelter, seek justice in the beauty, seek power in the life."