The exploration of the 4 main functions and their modes have allowed me to see the world in a much broader and more indepth scale. This is what made me decide that this has undeniable value. Then there is the fact that even when you delve into a wrong area of it, it allows you to connect with others and talk about our differences. That is also invalueable And lastly i found that the original typing method when done by yourself for yourself is surprisingly deep.
This is something that we have believed for a bit, that some aspects of the MBTI are better than others. This does not make people better or worse, however it does give people goals to reach, which is psychologically better than being perfect. We still prefer horizontal models that allow growth, and then use vertical models to move through events, developing your horizontal "stats" along side the events of the vertical models. We utilize the Big 5 for this over the MBTI, but still develop comparisons given that MBTI is the most communicated model in the world.
Erik, with all respect to your commitment and work, I honestly think that the only useful and valid frame for MBTI nowadays, is OPS. Especially the animals. MBTI types by themselves don't have much value and they're a bit like the zodiac. You can wake up any day and feel like you identify more with a different type. I'm speaking from experience, OPS really changed my life. Consider including it in your work.
If you wake up each day and somehow for some random reason 'identify' with a different type each day, then you are very inconcistant in your judgements or perceptions of yourself. There is likely a pattern there that you simply do not seem to see (unlesss you have multiple personalities, and a different one tkaes over each day?). Then your comparison to the zodiac seems to even makes less sense, as the zodiac signs does not really change day by day. You remain the same zodiac sign your entire life whether you want it or not. It has nothing to do with identiffying with anything. I do not proclaim the zodiact theory is right or false, but the mechansm it uses is not about "relating" to things, even if you would want it to. There are of course also daily zodiac related 'predictions' (horoscopes) that do change day by day ..but neither you can you just pick any one you identify with based which one you 'identify' with each day. I say "identify" as these days, in 2024 logic you can identify with any sex and in the future possibly you can identify as a rock, a christmas tree or or a dead wasp. However, in a more objective sense you are not really any of these things just by identifying with them .
@@rannieperalta2192 While I a skeptical of a lot of OPS ideas, I am curious how you think OPS is more "rigid" than other systems, as to me it seems more flexible than other systems as they are basically different possibly conflicting models stacked on top of eachother. So you have animals and you have human needs. Now they even added another one, social type. on top of that to even make it more clear which of these sub systems cause which things. I mean, I think all of these things do not make sense and basically unlike real science make it unfalsifiable, since any kind of reasoning can be used to explain things if they do not add up in reality. However, even though the system seems worse in this sense than what was the more traditional MBTI, the amount of boxes are far greater. Basically there are like 2000 boxes now? I would not be surprised if they have not even 1 person in every box, yet they make overly confident and claims with more confidence than reasonable with such complex system. However, just like all mbti type of systems, you still are put in a box..so I a mcroious how you perceive that to be different?
@@PowerRedBullTypology your reasoning is circular, you mentioned the additional features and concepts that they added to the system. However, you failed to realized my point why I view the system as rigid in terms of their claim that there are 512 personality types. That's simply untrue, Personality seems to me a color, there are fundamental colors but there are hues, accent, and grandients that makes the color so complex. I believe there are fundamental personality types but there are variations with it. Think of the the color red, there are orange red and if you put a light color in it you produced another color which neither orange red nor red if you add more and more color variations of color will emerge then. In fact there are thousands of colors, so as well when it comes to personality type. with the 16 personality types there are variations of for example INTP or INTJ that will going to exist on the spectrum. And to say the variation will just absolutely 512 is seems rigid. THERE ARE MORE variations than 512, I suppose it could be thousands. And this will explain everyone is Universally alike yet individually unique to each other. The OPS just simply multiply the 16 and came up to 512 and then stop there. I think that doesn't stop there. :-)
The exploration of the 4 main functions and their modes have allowed me to see the world in a much broader and more indepth scale. This is what made me decide that this has undeniable value.
Then there is the fact that even when you delve into a wrong area of it, it allows you to connect with others and talk about our differences. That is also invalueable
And lastly i found that the original typing method when done by yourself for yourself is surprisingly deep.
This is something that we have believed for a bit, that some aspects of the MBTI are better than others. This does not make people better or worse, however it does give people goals to reach, which is psychologically better than being perfect. We still prefer horizontal models that allow growth, and then use vertical models to move through events, developing your horizontal "stats" along side the events of the vertical models. We utilize the Big 5 for this over the MBTI, but still develop comparisons given that MBTI is the most communicated model in the world.
When speaking of Personality Psychology I trust the people like Erik Thor and Harry Murrel
Yes!!!
Thank you Erik, i feel this view is the closest to me.
People are complex cratures.
Thanks for the inspiration for this video! :)
MBTI is a great starting point for specialization. The enneagram can then take over for the integration piece.
Erik, with all respect to your commitment and work, I honestly think that the only useful and valid frame for MBTI nowadays, is OPS.
Especially the animals.
MBTI types by themselves don't have much value and they're a bit like the zodiac. You can wake up any day and feel like you identify more with a different type.
I'm speaking from experience, OPS really changed my life. Consider including it in your work.
How do you feel they respond to the problems I pose in this video? :) For example the binary (black and white) view
I disagree , in my opinion OPS is a bit of rigid binary system it put people in the box.
If you wake up each day and somehow for some random reason 'identify' with a different type each day, then you are very inconcistant in your judgements or perceptions of yourself. There is likely a pattern there that you simply do not seem to see (unlesss you have multiple personalities, and a different one tkaes over each day?). Then your comparison to the zodiac seems to even makes less sense, as the zodiac signs does not really change day by day. You remain the same zodiac sign your entire life whether you want it or not. It has nothing to do with identiffying with anything. I do not proclaim the zodiact theory is right or false, but the mechansm it uses is not about "relating" to things, even if you would want it to. There are of course also daily zodiac related 'predictions' (horoscopes) that do change day by day ..but neither you can you just pick any one you identify with based which one you 'identify' with each day.
I say "identify" as these days, in 2024 logic you can identify with any sex and in the future possibly you can identify as a rock, a christmas tree or or a dead wasp. However, in a more objective sense you are not really any of these things just by identifying with them .
@@rannieperalta2192 While I a skeptical of a lot of OPS ideas, I am curious how you think OPS is more "rigid" than other systems, as to me it seems more flexible than other systems as they are basically different possibly conflicting models stacked on top of eachother. So you have animals and you have human needs. Now they even added another one, social type. on top of that to even make it more clear which of these sub systems cause which things.
I mean, I think all of these things do not make sense and basically unlike real science make it unfalsifiable, since any kind of reasoning can be used to explain things if they do not add up in reality.
However, even though the system seems worse in this sense than what was the more traditional MBTI, the amount of boxes are far greater. Basically there are like 2000 boxes now? I would not be surprised if they have not even 1 person in every box, yet they make overly confident and claims with more confidence than reasonable with such complex system. However, just like all mbti type of systems, you still are put in a box..so I a mcroious how you perceive that to be different?
@@PowerRedBullTypology your reasoning is circular, you mentioned the additional features and concepts that they added to the system. However, you failed to realized my point why I view the system as rigid in terms of their claim that there are 512 personality types. That's simply untrue, Personality seems to me a color, there are fundamental colors but there are hues, accent, and grandients that makes the color so complex. I believe there are fundamental personality types but there are variations with it. Think of the the color red, there are orange red and if you put a light color in it you produced another color which neither orange red nor red if you add more and more color variations of color will emerge then. In fact there are thousands of colors, so as well when it comes to personality type. with the 16 personality types there are variations of for example INTP or INTJ that will going to exist on the spectrum. And to say the variation will just absolutely 512 is seems rigid. THERE ARE MORE variations than 512, I suppose it could be thousands. And this will explain everyone is Universally alike yet individually unique to each other.
The OPS just simply multiply the 16 and came up to 512 and then stop there. I think that doesn't stop there. :-)