Different typology systems

MBTI

The system uses the basic functions of Carl Jung and arrange them in an order making 16 types. We got introvert sensing, extrovert sensing, introvert intuition, extrovert intuition, introvert thinking, extrovert thinking, introvert feeling and finally extrovert feeling. Overtime the mbti focus more on the aspects of introvert versus extrovert, intuition versus sensing, thinking versus feeling, perceiving versus judging.

Introvert being more internally focus, more individualistic, less external actions, more drain by the outside, etc. Extrovert being more external focus, more collective, less internal actions, need stimulations from the outside. Intuition being more abstract focus, more macro, less real world actions, trouble with the details. Sensation being more concrete focus, more micro, more real world actions, trouble with abstractions. Thinking being more logically focus, about solving, make decisions base on what makes sense. Feeling being more emotions focus, about appreciating, make decisions base on feelings. Perceiving being more tactical focus, make decisions on the spot, more carefree, trouble planing. Judging being more strategy focus, make decisions carefully, more rigid, trouble with chaos. They see the letters as preference over another one. 

More complex Mbti do uses the 8 functions and arrange them in a stacking order of 8 slots. Each positon indicates something. 

• Dominant Function. The type's signature strength.
• Auxiliary Function. Sidekick to the dominant function.
• Tertiary Function. Relatively unconscious / undifferentiated.
• Inferior Function. Least conscious / accessible.
• Opposing
• Critical parent
• Trickster
• Demon

 

Socionics 

Socionics is a theory of how individuals select and process information. It can be categorized as a type of nomothetic psychology. Although information metabolism is at the theory's most elementary level, most applications of Socionics focus on the direct and indirect manifestations of a person's information metabolism. This primarily includes studying the effect of information metabolism on one's personality (behavior, mannerisms, etc.), but it also extends to studying interpersonal relationship dynamics, group dynamics, potential careers, societal role, and more. Socionics has 16 sociotypes, with each sociotype representing a specific and unique mode of information metabolism. A person only has one sociotype.

The foundation of the theory is built on the four Jungian dichotomies and Model A, essentially the synthesis of information elements and functions as a means of modeling information metabolism. Order of the eight functions: Ego block: 1. Leading function 2. Creative function. Super-Ego block: 3. Role function 4. Vulnerable function. Super-id block: 5. Suggestive function 6. Mobilizing function. Id block: 7. Ignoring function 8. Demonstrative function. 

Istj (LSI: logical-sensory-introvert, the judging aspect for introvert is different compare to mbti) as an example in socionics with functions associations:

1. Ti, L: Often referred to simply as Structural Logic.
2. Se, F: Often referred to simply as Force/Power.
3. Fi, R: Often referred to simply as Relational Ethics.
4. Ne, I: Often referred to simply as Intuition of Possibilities/Ideas.
5. Fe, E: Often referred to simply as Ethics/Emotions. 
6. Ni, T: Often referred to simply as Temporal Intuition/Time.
7. Te, P: Often referred to simply as Practical Logic.
8. Si, S: Often referred to simply as Experiential Sensing.

Often, other socionists have equated these information elements with their definition and according to fundamental physical concepts as well (Matter-Time-Energy-Space). Matter is compared to thinking, energy to feeling, space to sensing, and time to intuition. Given the division of aspects of the absolute between extroverted ("black") and introverted ("white"), being four times two, their number is eight.

There are also multiple dichotomies, intertype relationships and other things in the theory of model A. Including the popular use of quadras (Alpha, Delta, Beta, Gamma) which are the families of the functions stacks.

Alpha: Ego and Super Id Ne Fe Ti Si

Delta: Ego and Super Id Ne Te Fi Si

Beta: Ego and Super Id Se Fe Ti Ni

Gamma: Ego and Super Id Se Te Fi Ni

Objective Personality

The system is using the classic 8 cognitive functions, but they reframe it with Tony Robbins human needs (Oe, Oi, De, Di). Those human needs are paired with the letters N, S, F, T.

Human needs: Oi = Organise, Di = identity, Oe = Gather, De = Tribe

The observer letters are the intuition and the sensory. The decider letters are the thinking and feeling. 

Letters: N = intuition, S = sensory, T = thinking, F = feeling.

Functions: Ni = Organise intuition, Ne = Gathers intuition, Fe = tribe feeling, Fi = identity feeling, Te = Tribe thinking, Ti = identity thinking, Si = organise sensory, Se = Gather sensory.

Ops has also created the animals which are two functions (and human needs) working together creating a type of behavior. Here some simplification of the animals: Play = Expanding energy for the tribe, Blast = Teaching known info to the tribe, Sleep = Preserving energy for identity, Consume = Gathering and expanding info for identity. 

They also create the modalities and the social types. Modalities is the charge of masculine and feminine of particular functions in the stack. Social types are an overall layer about what the person is using in term of currency in social interactions and competition settings (Flexing, Responsability, Friends, Specialization). 

Objective personality type people base on the double blind test method where they type independently and try to arrive at the same result. Statistically, this is a hard task considering there are 512 types in the system. Overtime that help them be more accurate. They have gathered an immense database of people over the years. They are using the savior and demon dynamic to see people states and see the mechanics unfold (binary charges). This is my favorite theory even though some aspects and definitions of other systems are preferable to the simplistic term of Ops. They are personally not concern with making exhaustive definitions that lost themselves in abstraction which is a considerable point we dont have to forget in typology. If you know symbolism, objective personality actually match up very well with it. 

CS Joseph

This is an exhaustive system which uses the four sides of the mind, the type grid and the octogram. I might oversimplify or misrepresent some aspects, so you must see this section as an overall intro.

Type grid

There are 4 temperaments (SJ, SP, NF, NT) and they indicate affiliatice versus pragmatic, abstract versus concrete, systematic versus interest. SJ and NF are affiliative while SP and NT are pragmatic. NF and NT are abstract while SJ and SP are concrete. SJ and NT are systematic and NF and SP are interest. There is also the 4 interaction styles with Structure (Direct, Responding and Outcome), Starter (Informative, Responding, movement), Finisher (direct, initiating, movement) and Background (informative, initiating, outcome). Structure (Extrovert ST and ENxJ), Starter (Extrovert SF and ENXP), Finisher (Introvert ST and INXJ), Background (Introvert SF and INXP). Direct (ST and XNXJ), Informative (SF and XNXP), Initiating (extrovert), Responding (introvert), Outcome (Rational sensor Fi Te axis, Irrational sensor Fe Ti axis and Rational intuitive), Movement (Rational sensor Fe Ti axis, Irrational sensor Fi Te axis and Irrational intuitive). 

The four sides of the mind indicate some sub type within the psyche. There are the Ego, the unconscious, the Subconscious and the Superego. An Enfp would have an ego enfp, unconscious infj, subconscious estp and super ego istj. The stacking operate in the ego and in the unconscious as followed: Hero, Parent, child, inferior, nemesis, critic, trickster, demon. The first 4 is the type ego and the classic shadow in mbti is the unconscious. The simple definitions in the system are as followed: Si: duty, Te: rationale, Fi: morality, Ne: metaphysics, Se: Physics, Ti: logic, Fe: ethics, Ni: willpower. 

The octogram (pyramid and wheel)

The octogram illustrates the vices and virtues of types. There are 4 components that make an octogram and the cognitive origin in the middle being the integration of the four sides. There is 8 octogram, the type and it's unconscious. An Enfp and an istj (opposite) have the same octogram. CS Joseph is also inspired by the fourth turning, each side of the octogram is a specific season and turning. There is the UD (unconscious develop)/ SF (Subconscious focused)-first turning associate with hope, the SD (subconscious develop)/ SF (subconscious focused)-second turning associate with joy. SD (subconscious develop)/ UF (unconscious focused)-third turning with decay, the UD (unconscious develop)/ UF (unconscious focused)-fourth turning with despair. This is a brief summary probably not exactly accurate of the octogram. 

The god function temples are the extension of the octogram. There is the soul, the hearth, the mind and the body temples. There are four families of types, this is the same as the four sides. Irrational NF and ST are in the soul, Irrational NT and SF in the hearth, Rational ST and NF are in the mind, Rational SF and NT are in the body. These are connected with the vice and virtues of the types and go down the fractal way with the types in the type grid. The Soul temple focuses on character and authenticity, the Hearth temple focuses on passion and expression. The Mind temple focuses on education and learning, the Body temple focuses on creation and physical manifestation of art. 

I don't like how CS joseph illustrate his content and promote and charges his clients. But I do see that he is better for what he is credited for. A lot of his type grid inspire me to do my table of patterns. But the lack of instincts and cognitive tracking doesn't make it proper and integrate in my sense. I do like his octogram and his metaphysics a lot in general. I also see that it can confuse people in terms of typing.

Talking with famous people

Although Eric Strauss and his Youtube channel talking with famous people doesn't aim at being clear about its theory, he does have a book that talks about what he is seeing with types. He sees cognitive functions as matters of attention that can be type with a mechanic map. He seems to use a lot of Socionics and Mbti stacking mechanics and put its content in a more "correct" way. He access people in his sessions on Youtube according to their cognitive abilities and skills while also listening to the person story and narrative. 

Here some random condensed things in his book (Exciting tables and words about human personality): 

Epistemologist (knowers): objective: Ni (fittedness and universal knows), subjective: Si (finalizations and well being).

Actors (doers): objective: Ne (metaphysics and language), subjective: Se (causality and following actions).

Subjectivists (authentic judgers of interest): systems: Te (goals with less effort and sequences of operations), people: Fi (individuals value other individuals and good and bad manifestation).

Objectivists (disinterest detached evaluation): systems: Ti (interplay between objects and calculation concluding), people: Fe (emotional states of people and expressions that impacts). 

Fi and Ti = render, Fe and Te = interact, Si and Ni = know, Se and Ne act. Ne and Si = timelessness, Se and Ni = timefullness, Te and Fi = impacts, Fe and Ti = warrants. Se and Si = self as a body, Ne and Ni = self as mind, Te and Ti = subject ignoring, Fe and Fi = subject addressing. 

Ti = legitimacy, Te = procedure, Fe = politics, Fi = authenticity, Si = knowing me, Ni = knowing the world, Se = doing, Ne = talking. 

Origin of permanence (axis): Ni begins with shape consistency, Si begins with object permanence. Time link (axis): Ni treats time as turn based, Si treats time as fluid. 

TWFP slot (order of stacking): Slot Purpose 1: metaframe, 2: behavior, 3: scorecard, 4: seeking, 5: friend, 6: constraint, 7: Ineffable, 8: opposing. Slot Expression 1: open frame, 2: open process, 3: closed process, 4: closed frame, 5: value good, 6: high effort, 7: blind, 8: semi-blind good. Slot Name: 1: Base, 2: Tool. 3: Agenda, 4: Seeking, 5: Ignoring, 6: Countervalued, 7: Polr, 8: Insecurity. 

There are much more things that Eric talks about in his book. This is just an overview and an oversimplification of his content. 

 

Axis XII

There are energetics and modes. Energetics being Ji Je Pe Pi, and there are 12 modes being the pairing of the energetics. They were looking at visuals and mannerisms to type people at the beginning. There were influence by cognitive type, but overtime distance themselves with this theory. I am not familiar with their more recent theory and they seem to be more in the constructive phase so I will stop there. I invite you to go to their website. 

BIG FIVE

There are 5 components in the Big Five, being extrovert, conscientiousness, openness, agreeableness and neurotism. There are degrees of that, and that spectrum will indicate the percentile that you score in the general population in reference to others. This is the most scientific personality system at the moment. 

BIG 5 terms:

EXTROVERSION
Low: Quiet, reserved, withdrawn
High: Outgoing, warm, social, emotionally expressive

OPENNESS
Low: Practical, conventional, prefers routine
High: Curious, wide range of interests, independent, imagination

CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
Low: Impulsive, careless, disorganized
High: Self-disciplined, goal driven, hardworking, dependable, organized

AGREEABLENESS
Low: Critical, uncooperative, suspicious
High: Cooperative, good-natured, helpful, empathetic

NEUROTICISM
Low: Calm, even-tempered, secure
High: Unstable emotions, anxious, negative

Enneagram 

There are 9 types in this theory (I will not address them here). The types are in certain groups and they connect to the one adjacent to them. The wing is the name that we give to the connection. For example you can only be a type 9 with a wing 1 or a wing 8. The group use to forms tritype is the hearth, body and head centers. The types 9,8,1 are body center, the types 2,3,4 are hearth center and the types 5,6,7 are head center. You can only have one of the centers in your tritype. For example: you can be a 963 but not a 983. The first type is your core type and the rest gives a taste of the nuance of your type. There are multitudes of groups including the hornevian group, the harmonic group and most importantly, the object relation group. There are also the instincts which are social, self preservation and sexual. They are arranged in a stacking of 3 forming as followed in the example of self preservation/social/sexual: SP/SO. I will suggest you to go to the Enneagrammer or other Enneagram schools for more in depth material. 

1) REFORMER: Rational, idealistic, principled, purposeful, self-controlled, perfectionistic
2) HELPER: Caring, interpersonal, generous, people-pleasing, possessive
3) ACHIEVER: Success-oriented, pragmatic, adaptive, excelling, driven, image-conscious
4) INDIVIDUALIST: Sensitive, withdrawn, expressive, dramatic, self-absorbed, temperamental
5) INVESTIGATOR: Intense, cerebral, perceptive, innovative, secretive, isolated
6) LOYALIST: Committed, security-oriented, engaging, responsible, anxious, suspicious.
7) ENTHUSIAST: Busy, fun-loving, spontaneous, versatile, distractible, scattered.
8) CHALLENGER: Powerful, dominating, self-confident, decisive, willful, confrontational.
9) PEACEMAKER: Easygoing, self-effacing, receptive, reassuring, agreeable, complacent.

This is just a brief intro.

Why typology is important

We tend to regard humans as people who change a lot with time and are heavily influence by experience and culture and have super complex personalities. Typology in a sense is actually narrowing down the core aspects of our complex personalities. It serves as a map and a way to track manners of attention. It also offers a solution to the fact that people change. Which is not entirely true, people have some basis and fundamental components to their personalities. This is what typology is trying to scale by having types of classifications to put into words what is being seen in terms of patterns of instinctual modes, cognitive modes, mechanical modes and modes of behavior. It is a meta frame first to see how people unfold in reality and with time concretise itself with databases. We can see people core triggers and from what process overall it is coming from. A typology done well offers a baseline to the human mechanisms in an approach that is innate and universal enough to be seen across human experience and within oneself to a deep degree. 

It is crucial that we come to understand ourselves more deeply. Psychology has always been a field with a lack of integration and applications. Psychology and psychological states were guarded by religious phenomenons and beliefs in our recent past. Our modern change is a reflection that we know nothing of our psychology and what is the actual purpose of religions (psychological apparatus). We lack a cohesive, memory holder and deeply grounded psychological foundations. Religious texts were and still are those cohesive holders of memory and psychological stability. But we are in a day and age where our understanding of psychology has to grow in order to establish something more right at every level of reality (not only society holder). Meaning that we understand ourselves and individuals and mass phenomenons in order to establish an optimal reality for all human beings. Typology is a part of that big process of understanding people. Our civilization is at a point where the richness of our psyche seems to be the only important thing that will help us stop repeating destructive cycles. We now have technologies that are dangerous enough to destabilise society as a whole and we can spread informations so quickly (positively or negatively). 

In my sense, society has to evolve in terms of psychological understanding and that will come through typology, philosophy and some understanding of myths and religions. Not only in the metaphysical sense but also has maps and systems that can be applied in reality and offer clarity. Some useful active maps for every level of the psychological analysis to actually understand whats going on at the rooth cause.

Personality illusion and types general misunderstanding

What is tricky here is that down the line personality is an illusion. Meaning you are more than your personality. But in order to realise that, you have to get in touch with the core components of your personality. The word “personality” is derived from the Greek word “persona” which means a mask, a role that is played or a disguise. The thing is that our personality is so ingrained in us that the persona feels real. When you deal with instincts, this is when you realise your reactive states are not controlled by you. Which means that you are a victim or a subject to your instinctuals "personas". Now this illusion is something that is not real in the sense that it prevents you to see some parts of reality and that it directs your life without you knowing. It's also important to remember that this illusion is real in the sense that this is your experience right now as a "persona". This experience is true for you right now. That nuance will help you realise how it is not you but also that it is in fact your experience as of right now. 

The first misunderstanding of types is simply to think that your personality is your type. You have to understand that the core components of your type is limited to the instincts, cognitions, mechanisms and behaviors that it entails. Your culture and to some degree your experience are not at all express in your type code even if they might have influence core components of your life. Basically the things that dont originate from your type code and are not genetic are not your type. Typology job is to offer universals categories (symbolism), patterns of behaviors (experience expand it) and general cognitive modes (science expand it). I personally see it as precise interior and universal interior together without external precise and exterior universal even though parts of the analysis and reflections can be there too. So overidentification with your type is a fundamental error, especially to people who are deeply invest in typology. 

The other classic misunderstanding is thinking that you cannot be put in a box. This one is a more classic outsider of typology misunderstanding. What is mind breaking overtime knowing typology is that people actually do repeat the same patterns. That "persona" type that you embody can be so easily predicted. Just that nuances have to be made in order to see what is the origin of the triggers. There is a lot of time spent in order to know the math code of the person, but once you get it, it is often time mind breaking. Good typology will offer that. And as of right now, with the lack of database, lack of rigid profiles and the lack of details, we can only talk to people that are open minded enough and willing to dive into this subject. People are still very nuanced and have more dimensions than the box can appear describing. That's why it's always best to keep in mind that your personality is in illusion and that type is only a big fraction of the personality without the messiness of it (culture, experience). But the box do fit, and even highly develop or enlighten people can be trackable with their types, even if it can be harder to see. The interpretation game is hard and to really have results, you have to surrender to the process and track core instincts wiring. 

Motivation and Cognitive

Motivation is what most typologies are using even though they address some forms of cognition. It is looking at the order of the values of traits and accessing mechanics. While cognitive typologies are more rare even though they do address some form of motivation and order of value. It is looking at the processes of information first in terms of cognition and accessing behaviors. It's quite messy in the sense that most typologies are not self conscious of what they are doing in that frame. And both the motivation and cognitive are used in typology (except Enneagram and Big Five that are strictly motivational). Jung is a genius thats why we have both aspects in typology. 

Now lets make that more concrete with a general illustration and explain how that manifest and unfold. We can say that 1. is the most direct form of expression and 4. is the most unconscious in universals:

1. Behaviors, state, universally Fe, De

2. Mechanics, role, universally Te, Oe

3. Cognition, perception, universally Ti, Oi

4. Instincts, motivation, universally Fi, Di

A typology that focuses on information as a mechanic map is cognitive focus. In typology language that would be a Ti Fe and an ST (sensory and thinking) approach. Eric Strauss and Socionics are both cognitive models even if they are very on the motivational side of things. Some schools of Socionics are very cognitive focus but very weird in terms of behaviors (quadras values) in my opinion. We can say that Axis XII, cognitive typology and cognitive personality type are cognitive model. Cognitive thinks mechanics are inherently explain by cognition and behaviors, and it goes towards thinking in terms of skills over time (2. problems). Meaning over time they forget instincts and motivation (4. problems) and focus on skills and usage to some degree. When done right, a cognitive model has a bottom up process, meaning the facts force the patterns to manifest. There is the "Ti" universality of the rigid vector math that is being processed and highlight in the map (ST) to see the spectrum and the potential of behaviors (Fe). 

A typology that focuses on motivation and schemas of values is motivational/instinctual (lack of better word) focus. In typology language that would be a Te Fi approach and a NF (intuition and feeling) approach. All the small typologies out there are probably towards the motivational sides. We can see Enneagram as a classic motivational model. Cs Joseph is also a popular system that focus more on values metrics and mechanics. Objective personality is the one that is the most aware that it is a motivational system because of the savior demon focus. And the only one that is doing both approaches inherently by the system structure. Motivation thinks cognition is inherently explained by instincts and mechanics and it goes towards thinking in terms of behaviors overtime (1. Demon). Meaning, over time they infer cognition (3. problem) but they look at instincts (or value) and mechanics. When done right, a motivational model has a top down process, meaning the patterns are forcing the facts. There is the "Fi" universality of instincts that we try to see and read (NF) to see the motivation behind the mechanics (Te). 

Because of the hierarchy of the functions (positions), there is value infer. And because Jung saw them as "cognitive functions", we sort of have models that are both approaches. Both frames are important. In my view, it is harder to have a good motivational system and it is easier to be mistaken as a cognitive system. I think it's hard to read the messiness of human with the cognitive approach. It's also too rigid and can loose the motivation behind the math. The other problem is too much or little abstraction. The beginning and end process (input and output) is easy for the cognitive, but the middle can be filled with abstraction problems. For motivation systems we have the huge problem of the interpretation factor. Also inferring cognition because of motivation. It's also more complex by nature to look at instincts and motivation even though cognition is not simple either. 

Psychology has a whole has disregard cognitive system of typology (it was always disregarded) because of biology and brain scans assessing cognition for us. The motivation systems are either viewed as pseudo science or useful maps when they are on a scale from the get go (big five) without hierarchy or small cognitive focus (Mbti/Jung stack). 

The future of typology and mass adoption

In my sense symbolism will make us see how the universal fundamental categories manifest in everyone in different ways. That would be the way to see the motivational aspect better and the databases that have explanatory power will showcase the realness of the case. Cognitive models will be investigate and we will have a typology that is very well round and useful. 

I don't see a world where typology has not a place in the center of important preoccupation. This is highly probable that we will live a typology revolution in the sense that personality profiles will be so accurate and precise that everyone will want to know their profiles. Now only seekers and people that will want to know their process will go down the rabbit hole. Most typology systems nowadays are for three primary things: 1. The work environment 2. Growth: Inner work/spiritual work/shadow work 3. Understanding oneself and others. 

I believe that with the expansion of AI, our civilization will take into account every parameters of human lives. Typology, hormones and nutritions will probably be the most concentrate stuff that will affect our day to day. That society will be highly practical in the sense that schools will have profiles and ways to help develop people. All that sophistications will take some time. I can only predict here and explain what I see unfold, but I do see an optimistic future with typology. Even though I can see some potential pitfalls of it. 

The pitfalls: Cults of preferences of certain personalities. I can see the emergence of groups of individuals that exclude certain types. That phenomena always exist, but that will certainly be something that will happen for sure. The emergence of some forms of nazism, censoring certain types and genetic manipulations. I can see some more nuances forms of triggering and forms of attention that are about manipulation. 

The benefits: There is so much potential for growth and for people to understand each other. More people on the path for inner work and working to be better people who accept themselves. The upswing for society as a whole is huge in terms of understanding, innovation, philosophy and spirituality. People will also have tools to defend themselves and navigate reality in their desires and triggers. I honeslty see all spheres of society at every level being influence positively by typology, doesnt seem like a stretch to me. 

I think that we will see a mass adoption and implementation in some societies as a whole around 2040s-2050s. Pitfalls are to be forseen to be prevent to some degree. More in the sense of a warning and seeing them coming because some of them will inevitably happen. 

My opinion of an integrate theory

So how to integrate all the theories or determine what is true. This is a hard problem to answer since this is dynamic and it differs in degree of where a theory is right and where it is wrong. Also the angles it is coming from, what it is trying to achieve and also if we can build upon the theory. Personally, my personality is messy and tend to grasp things by intuition. I focus on what is universally true and line up with some form of symbolism that can be build upon. Also, I accept a lot of data and try to merge them. I tend to wait for things to finally collapse and show what they actually offer. This is a slow process.

My system is how I tried to make sense of where things go. To me, that's very nuance where the different typology go and what they are more focused on in the ecosystem. My approach is radical in the sense that the best typology should also map the world in the most optimal, clean, fundamental way. I try to cherry pick what seems to make the most sense. Trying to see what is missing, how the theory matches the practice and the blind spot of a theory. Typology is a meta frame that should be an anchor to build metaphysics upon and build a data base upon. Now, there is beliefs and intuition involve so we got to be careful. This is an interpretation field on stéroïde so it is normal that I form some understanding base on what seems right intuitively in the reading sense and non so graspable elements. Like for example why we track 4 functions and the other 4 are more universal and not seeking. I have some points but you might not be convince, and I cannot really prove you with ST facts evidences apart from pointing out how those functions are non intentional and more of a mixture of math rather than direct force when they are expressed in a person. They are more in the experience in itself which is hard to prove cause it is very contextual, hard to grasp and subject to interpretation limitations.

But the optimal way to know what is true and objective is to be obsessed about determining its validity. To be focus on the system and the consistency. Have feedback tools, systems of accountability, people feedback, the scientific method, limits. Lots of experience, lots of questioning, digestion of informations, consolidation of informations. All the different patterns feedback: duality, hierarchy, vertical dimension, cycle, horizontal dimension, fractals, fundamental categories, trinity, quadrants. Universals, symbolism, dimensionality, levels, lines, creativity and representation. 

And of course no matter how much you map things accurately, reality will be the ultimate judge. It is people patterns and dynamics that hold up in the time process that will show themselves to be right. The theory might want to reformulate itself or have some scaling that is more fitting. It is worth keeping in mind that both the data and the theory have limitations and the balance of the two is the best way to see overtime what is accurate. 

I personally see Objective personality as the best system out there right now. I think it cannot be wrong in the sense it is applying a math that is in line with universals. Also, the data line up with it and show patterns that prove themselves to be right. Now there is a blind spot to the theory in the sense that the abstraction and the cognition are left behind. At the same time, it is best to leave them for the future. Meaning the inclusion of abstraction when we have more data and more cognition focus when the cognitive science and the neuroscience test it. For me, there are still ways to expand those areas. My table of patterns is an attempt to get more cognitive focus and expand the metaphysics of the definitions. It is also worth mentioning that the structure of Ops is more optimal in the sense it is using binary coins, it is highly fractal and mathematical, it is tracking motivation and it is using the double blind test.

At the end we want explanatory power, real causation, some metrics that can help us track humans and know what is actually happening in the equation. 

CS Joseph and TWFP contributions

Other theories do offer some solutions and interesting ways to look at typology. They are from my point of view still giving some points that can counter balance Ops problems. CS Joseph with his type grid has influenced some meaning of my table of patterns. I also stole his optimistic pessimistic words for my table. Like Ops, I don't think there are 8 functions, but 4 seeking functions. The other 4 (unconscious) are more in terms of universals rather than personal. So I actually use the four sides of the mind for some sort of explanation of the unconscious functions even though I don't agree with the four sides. The octogram has been for me just something that is not so typology alike and is more something that is an attempt to do a Enneagram/Socionics quadra values thing. I think that it is highly prone to mistype people. But I do see how they are interesting in the sense of how they scale ideas and expand the horizon. CS Joseph seems to also mix social with types. For instance, a lot of intj and infj "willpower" is in fact more a social type 1 or 2 thing. I've seen that CS Joseph is often kind of right in his typing compare to others, but he is weird in certain type areas. 

I also use TWFP philosophy for the expansion of metaphysics of typology. The saying "Cognitive functions are matters of attention" actually made me see what they are. I mostly use the positions slot mechanics of TWFP and even the name intuitively of his position in my table. But I don't agree with his assessments of people because they are often time wrong. He has the cognitive system problem in the sense that he is inferring skills and cognition. And that equals matters of attention which is not true. He has no grasp of motivation, instincts and typing people in reality. I also disagree with the polr function dynamic and I think he contributed to this big problem in typology. Even though Ops do forget some function dynamics for animal dynamics and some math of positioning that is highly concerning. Eric Strauss will make distinctions that polr Si has a harder time for something and that will mean something as an intuitive pattern. There is a loss of fractal of tendencies of slot with Ops. Also, TWFP reminds me how animals are a perversion of Ops in the sense that behaviors are not only in animals,  For example, Dave thinks his Te is blast and he project all the mechanisms of that into that animal, forgetting functions. Going to behaviors and mechanics instead and forgetting cognition which is a motivational system problem. My table counter balance that in the sense this is a mix of the right elements of TWFP and CS Joseph only focus on cognitive function dynamics. 

Axis XII and developments 

Axis XII is taking the difficult journey in the sense that they are trying to map not 4 animals but 12 animals. And put developments in the equation to see what the person is capable of utilizing and how it is sustaining an energy (libido and energetic). To me, that is very honorable, but you need a better structure and accurate typing which those guys lack immensely. Too much abstraction and developments with little basis that it clouds the typing process. This development mapping can still be done but in a more general sense. A more human approach and a more cognitive well balanced approach but with a proper structure like Ops. Doing developments of cognition with highly develop model of abstraction in typology without neuroscience is just nonsense in 2024. It is more useful to have inspiring images fill with emotions and context to develop yourself rather than arbitrary lines of the use of functions. You can't type the person innate type if you can't separate innate and experience to some degree even though we know they cannot be separated in reality. I am still doing something similar to axis XII in my sphere 1-3-4 but nothing is crystallized there. It is more the individuation, the spiritual and the more classic human development rather than function development. To me, those developments are seen and felt but that mapping is too complex cognitively precisely when you cannot type as a baseline within the model and you mix innate and experience every time. 

Psychology in academia doesn't want to isolate innate, the only thing capable of being innate right now is biology. They are not following the proper structure of patterning and understanding how things are in their proper place. We don't have to do the bottom up scientific process in everything. We also have to do the top down like axis XII is doing even if it's hard. We need to be doing it properly like Ops and have it match up gracefully, like a joining together (top down on the data and use data). And now we see the true potential of personality and the psychology of that matchup in it's proper align process knowing it's rightful place. Psychology is top down and NF in universal so we have to deal with that in that fashion. We also have to pay attention and do the match up to it and cover it's blind spot. But also follow the rightful sequences and sacrifice of order to arrive at something credible. The conflict of top down typology and bottom up precise cognitive development is so there. But at the end a theory is a theory and what might be valuable at the end is the ideas or the structure in itself. There is definitely more than 4 animals and even more than 12 animals if we go more and more outside of the symbolic. The spectrum recognition and the servitude for it in the mapping is what truly matters. Recognize this progression as lines that connect but are also legitimate in their own place in terms of purpose.