Objective personality test

[CR400AF]

Such systems are fully flawed and meaningless. This test even claim that Socionics is "obscure" while their system is "objective". I can't agree with such claims. As far as I'm concerned Socionics (Model A) is the best among all the so-called Jungian typologies.

If you have 7000000000 types you get everyone typed correctly. The addition of subtype is just a means to cover up one's inability to accurately type correctly in the framework of the 16 types.

Each personality typology system cuts through just one facet of the complex human psyche. It all has its own scope.

Jung's typology, for example, is a dissection of human types based on I/E attitudes and the 4 psycho-cognitive functions. Obviously, there are many factors that Jung's typology cannot address. For example, IQ, moral standing, etc. are part of human traits, but these are beyond the scope of Jungian typology. Therefore, I think it is crucial to be able to accurately determine the 16 types. For other categories, we have other classifications, such as E9, Dark Traid, attachment types, etc. Each of these methods has its own role to play in describing humans from different sides. To develop subtypes too much is just to cover up one's incompetence.

[Biscuit]

Such systems are fully flawed and meaningless. This test even claim that Socionics is "obscure" while their system is "objective". I can't agree with such claims. As far as I'm concerned Socionics (Model A) is the best among all the so-called Jungian typologies.

This is the case for any system in the world, any religion, any party, any typology system, anyone who has their own ideas, etc : "I am right and the rest are wrong " attitude , recently I've started to think it's just a human nature

[CR400AF]

This is the case for any system in the world, any religion, any party, any typology system, anyone who has their own ideas, etc : "I am right and the rest are wrong " attitude , recently I've started to think it's just a human nature

This is from the first page of this test:

While similarities can be seen when comparing OPS to the well-known Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and more obscure systems which are also based on Jung's work, such as Socionics and its derivatives, the OPS provides a very precise model of human cognition. This is because it has taken some conceptual inspiration from scientific standards not based on Jung's work like the Five Factor Model (BigFive), which characterises the human psyche on five main spectrums of traits, rather than typing people into vague, limiting "boxes" (the 16 types in MBTI and Socionics).

Have Socionics claimed similar things? Have Jung ever claimed that his typology is the very precise model? Nope. Jung actually claimed that his model is not trying to describe every aspects. The name of Socionics doesn't imply that Socionics is the best. I also haven't find any Socionics test claiming so. Of course, I do hold this opinion but if I'm discussing in a web forum and I have posted various posts to support my claim with Jung's original texts.

They think that they are better than Jung and Socionics. The first page of this test even describes socionics as "obscure". When you make an OPS test, there's no need to degrade other typologies in the first page of the test. The OPS named itself as "objective personality system", which implicitly degrades all other system by implying that their system is the objective one. The first page of this test even degrade Socionics to be vague and limiting. There are quite mathematical definitions of both IMEs and functions in Socionics. Is that vague? For instance, Socionics defines Si as dynamic, external, relationship-oriented information elements. I don't think Socionics is vague.

Also, as I understand it, they interpret introverted perceiving functions as organizational. In that case, does the "organizing" process involve judgment? I'm not sure what the official OPS website says, because their website seems to require payment.

Update: I tried to find their videos on YouTube, and I found one similar to what I have been told before:



In this video they draw a picture claiming that Si decides which organization is the best and which is the worst, ranks them from 1 to 5. Isn't that judgmental? A system that claims a perceiving function to be judgmental. It seems to be a very obvious logical flaw for me.

In addition, such understanding of Si is fully different from what Jung means by Si.

[Sol]

When a test based on speculative self descriptions names it as objective it's hard to take it seriously.