# INTJ

#### Pizzabeak

##### Prolific Member
I took the test and got INTP. Sadly, it's hard to be certain sometimes and I could be J. Or, even INFP but probably not. It said my Ti isn't as strong as it should be, but that Fe is still last so it's INTP. It then said my Ne was slightly overdeveloped, but I don't think it's my first function, or that I'm an extrovert (although people want me to be?), even if ENXP are the most introverted extroverts.
My oldest brother got ENTP so he could be one. Growing up, it makes sense. So I don't particularly think it's me, but it's all relative.
When it gets to me (the loop) I can't tell if in my head it's Ni. I don't think I aim to use it as much but it's hard to tell whether I have inferior Se or if it is Fe. My Te more or less sucks so I could be INTJ or not. Does anyone know? I never thought about it this much. INFJ actually seems like a possibility because Ti but INTJ appears more likely than that.

Last edited:

#### Rolling Cattle

##### Redshift
Don't people use all cognitive functions? I thought our type just represents our default /most used mode. I can't see why some people can't be in between two modes. Maybe you are a hybrid of INTP + INTJ, and can flip flop easily between the two. The RC system would classify you as a INT!

#### Pizzabeak

##### Prolific Member
Yeah. It does. I suppose it isn’t that static. As far as P/J goes, it means you would change from Ti to Ni then Ne to Te, which could make sense, but they’re way different yet similar, so the change seems rather drastic. Fe would become Se. It makes sense. Ni is INTP’s 6th function, so if you see it, it’ll be the result of the first four. I don’t think it’s actively used or sought after but will just happen or be interpreted that way.
On second thought, anyone can use any function. ENFPs constantly try to be more T or use Ti ‘better’ than Ti doms, but they can’t, and if they don’t know the theory, they don’t know they’re Fi-Te. Everyone knows the theory nowadays though so we’re moving on. It’s mostly Ne. In serious, in depth one on one discussion it’s more uncomfortable for them (inf Si). So if you were both it would be that.
Similarly, if it’s INFP, then Ti will turn into Fi, and as far as ‘decision making processes’ go, they’re way different. It would get messy. Every person is unique with their own set up, attributes, and stats. That’s why there were “sub categories” of each type, with 5-6 each. I’m a proponent of the notion that functions are embedded in the brain. Whether there are 16 types or about 2560 is really a matter of detail. It’s like pod lair at that point.

#### Pizzabeak

##### Prolific Member
Not really, Se and Fe are both communication functions so they'd be interchangeable in that regard. I took a test and got INFP once because my Fi and Ti were close but there was more Ti than Fi so it was INTP before the first time I administered the test myself. If you have Se then it's Ni. I could also be ISTP, which has Ni, except it's tertiary in a unique position which is a "resting state" hypothetically of the consciousness so it seems like the main or baseline one. It depends on your mood, brain state and which waves they're generating, so you could get in a flow pattern and go off on using the best use of your mind. If you're introverted your 1st, dominant function is either Ji or Pi. If it's Ti you'd still need an expression in Ne. Ti comes out as Fe as well. So when you're using it, it's guiding what's in your brain and transmitting through neural networks not unlike electric signals through a synapse.
It's still getting produced and perceived through senses in an extraverted fashion for other organisms to use and get stimulated off. People forget that they think the default mode of all organisms is extroversion. That's why extraverts like to bully awkward introverts whether subconscious or not, and it works for a workplace or career moves and entrepreneuriship in an altruistic influenced set of mirrored reactions as a model to prove the final moment of truth and reality in this nature. The universe is an idea that fractals out to many and infinite dimensions for all eternity.

#### Animekitty

##### (ISFP)-(E)(N)(T)(P)
How do you experience the functions in yourself as INTJ?

#### Ex-User (8886)

##### Well-Known Member
I took the test and got INTP. Sadly, it's hard to be certain sometimes and I could be J. Or, even INFP but probably not. It said my Ti isn't as strong as it should be, but that Fe is still last so it's INTP. It then said my Ne was slightly overdeveloped, but I don't think it's my first function, or that I'm an extrovert (although people want me to be?), even if ENXP are the most introverted extroverts.
My oldest brother got ENTP so he could be one. Growing up, it makes sense. So I don't particularly think it's me, but it's all relative.
When it gets to me (the loop) I can't tell if in my head it's Ni. I don't think I aim to use it as much but it's hard to tell whether I have inferior Se or if it is Fe. My Te more or less sucks so I could be INTJ or not. Does anyone know? I never thought about it this much. INFJ actually seems like a possibility because Ti but INTJ appears more likely than that.
list even more types that you can be...
I have always known that I'm INTP, because I compared to people than I knew. So I'm very similar to ISTPs and we understand each other near perfectly, so this way I learned I can't be INTJ, because ISTJ people are so different from me, much much more than ISTPs. Discover which people are similar to you and you can perfectly determine your type.

#### v3nge

##### Too busy thinking to make any decisions.
You could be like me, an INTP with a well integrated shadow. The shadow type of the INTP is ENTJ. Through life experiences and social feedback, it is very normal and healthy to integrate Fe (your shadow function) and even judging qualities (so as to actually get things done.)

Particularly, INTPs with the 5w4 enneagram type seem to be more integrated with the shadow.

#### ProxyAmenRa

##### Here to bring back the love!
You can tell if you are an INTJ if you feel a compulsion to make things happen and then you make them happen.

Last edited:

#### washti

##### tellurian
Hey @Pizzabeak could you describe your habits? Things like:
What's on your head when prepering new meal, visiting new place etc?
Do you organize new information unrelated to school/job? If yes, how you doing it? what digital/analog tools are you using?
How you evaluate data as worthy?
How you form opinions?
How sensory input influence you?

#### Pizzabeak

##### Prolific Member
Hey @Pizzabeak could you describe your habits? Things like:
What's on your head when prepering new meal, visiting new place etc?
Huh not much, I might concentrate more on the instructions for what the meal calls for so as not to mess up then again it would depend on if I'm doing it right or not, following it to a T that is, not that I like to experiment because I don't really, for all practical purposes and intents, or anything like that, was going to say it may not or might not be a good question to gauge those traits as far as I can see, I mostly could eat the same thing over mostly these days or get stuff out to eat at restaurants so it'd be prepared for me. If I go to a new place I'd just pay attention. Most people'd try to take in as many sights and sounds as they could, like dogs on a walk. I'd notice all the pretty girls, ladies, women, broads, gals, dames, chicks, belles, lasses, and schoolgirls or whatever. I'd like to take photos of the outsides and environments such as landscapes or whatever is there. I'd mostly be comparing how it is to what there was already before.
Do you organize new information unrelated to school/job? If yes, how you doing it? what digital/analog tools are you using?
Usually, these days though I have a sort of 'capacity' and keep most of it in my head while some can be transcribed to bits of information for storage and later callback. So sometimes the school/job isn't always related to outside information, for whatever is taking up most of your time or occupying the mind. And there's the idea it could distract you from more relevant things or info if you have too much of it, which could not be true. So not really, I could say there's little time as it is and try to focus more on a goal to not be too distracted by things like entertainment or movies. They say balance is key so you're really just missing out on public opinion, and the latest mainstream memes. You could sell out that far to be recognized for your success, or just to be out in the social sphere I guess, not that it's to take the sensory environment in but you'd just be there.
How you evaluate data as worthy?
All data is worthy, I used to take and select what was only relevant to my main focus, which was basically science & psychedelics after a point, so I understood there was practically limited time to get through it all and just tried to focus. Then it would all mostly connect and I'd have to get the data anyway, it may have depended on when though. So, basically if it was relevant. Some stuff is kind of filler if you can just file it away to possibly remember for later influence, although I'd doubt any practical application for it. Actually I didn't know what the right path was or what to do so you could know if you were smart enough or "enlightened" then you'd live a good life.
How you form opinions?
I just do. I compare stuff to what I have read for instance or experienced and witnessed to be the moral or proper thing to do or what something should be. So the more you've read the more you can have. It's about the people you have met.
How sensory input influence you?
Greatly. It could all be in the mind. Over here now there's an Se/Ne fad where you have to get and see as much as possible within the moment. I already know and have experienced all or most of it but they want more. I think they could be missing the point in a skewed way because there's no other way it could be considering anything that they've done. You can't particularly school someone in their own subject unless you just want to have a friendly casual discussion or conversation on it. So anything else would be chalked up to social awkwardness and neglected EQ, not IQ. It's like a virus that spreads and multiplies like maggots on trash. It's an indirect plea for affirmation or help of some sort.

##### think again losers
You're not an INTJ. Or, at least, you haven't ever given me the faintest impression that that's a possibility.

What direction do you have?

#### PmjPmj

##### Full of stars.
www.objectivepersonality.com

^ when they get their video typing service back up in September, I'd advise you (and anyone else struggling) to get typed by those guys.

Fun fact: I'm actually 'one of you'. Yep, you heard right - I'm an INTP.

The reason I seem so 'EJ' is because I'm FF-Ti/Ne CP/B(S). In other words, I'm a machine. It's good stuff.

#### Artsu Tharaz

##### Resident Resident
@Pizzabeak I generally see you as an INFJ.

I can look through some of your posts and give a text based analysis, if you'd like.

Don't people use all cognitive functions? I thought our type just represents our default /most used mode. I can't see why some people can't be in between two modes. Maybe you are a hybrid of INTP + INTJ, and can flip flop easily between the two. The RC system would classify you as a INT!
This sounds like it's in the right direction, or at least bears a resemblance to some of my own intuitions.

I took the test and got INTP. Sadly, it's hard to be certain sometimes and I could be J. Or, even INFP but probably not. It said my Ti isn't as strong as it should be, but that Fe is still last so it's INTP. It then said my Ne was slightly overdeveloped, but I don't think it's my first function, or that I'm an extrovert (although people want me to be?), even if ENXP are the most introverted extroverts.
My oldest brother got ENTP so he could be one. Growing up, it makes sense. So I don't particularly think it's me, but it's all relative.
When it gets to me (the loop) I can't tell if in my head it's Ni. I don't think I aim to use it as much but it's hard to tell whether I have inferior Se or if it is Fe. My Te more or less sucks so I could be INTJ or not. Does anyone know? I never thought about it this much. INFJ actually seems like a possibility because Ti but INTJ appears more likely than that.
list even more types that you can be...
I have always known that I'm INTP, because I compared to people than I knew. So I'm very similar to ISTPs and we understand each other near perfectly, so this way I learned I can't be INTJ, because ISTJ people are so different from me, much much more than ISTPs. Discover which people are similar to you and you can perfectly determine your type.
How can you be sure of the type of others if you're not yet sure of your own type?

#### washti

##### tellurian
lol another one. I wonder when typology bubble will finally burst.
anyway, what incentives they have for me? scientific method claimants aside.
like on cognitivetype you can watch Cheeseumpuffs talking about squirrel dicks.
@Auburn do you see them as competitors? whats your taking?

EDIT: Pizza you are unique navel-geyser. in The N(i/e) Grip. Full stop. Just please don't pay ppl to type you...

#### PmjPmj

##### Full of stars.
lol another one. I wonder when typology bubble will finally burst.
anyway, what incentives they have for me? scientific method claimants aside.
like on cognitivetype you can watch Cheeseumpuffs talking about squirrel dicks.
@Auburn do you see them as competitors? whats your taking?
These guys are the real deal, so far.

They've commented on Auburn a few times. Whilst findings oftentimes differ, they absolutely respect CT, think they've uncovered some really valuable insights and are 100% up for getting together to discuss whatever.

#### washti

##### tellurian
These guys are the real deal, so far.
But how is this possible? Are there reasons that they really...can do?

Afterall and finally, you have arrived. Now you have the type. And can believe in it. Undeniably.
I'm with you and happy for you, Pmj. Maybe even other forumites share a similar joy.

I can't stop thinking though. As I see them coming, those typologists.
If a day will come when I wake up and an army of them will be there?

But hey, since they comment on Auburn my respect is like...growing. They know they are not alone in it.

#### PmjPmj

##### Full of stars.
There's too much to go in to at the moment (rushed with work) but they've typed over 2000 people at this point with a 95% + 'hit rate' between the two of them, so something is working.

The proverbial proof in the pudding is when you converse with other people who share your type (out of 512 at this point). Holy shit. If ever you needed convincing that this is a simulation and we're all clones...

The *only* doubt in my mind is that I question whether I'm Ti/Ne or Ne/Ti - but honestly, the types are so close together that it doesn't even matter, truth be told. If I agree with the original INTP hypothesis (which I did for months and still do, by and large) I still have double-activated Ne and Fe; in effect, I am on the very, very edge of the 'INTP' spectrum (32 types within each MBTI type) so by default I have a lot of overlap with ENTP. Or, if I am Ne/Ti, I'd have a lot of overlap with INTP... soooo whatever.

Veronica has also been typed. She's the same type as Ultimate Warrior xD

MM-Te/Si BP/S(C).

In other words, right at the apex of ass-kickers.

#### Artsu Tharaz

##### Resident Resident
they've typed over 2000 people at this point with a 95% + 'hit rate' between the two of them, so something is working.
.
Ok, I'm hooked.

So they're saying that there's not just 16 types, but 32 variants of each type. What are the 32 variants? I can't see much info on the site.

#### PmjPmj

##### Full of stars.
Animal ordering, function modality, etc.

For example, a traditional INTP is more about CS/B(P)- consume first, then sleep energy (organising known information for the self), then sharing information, then expending energy in reality.

I'm CP/B(S), so I consume > do all the shit > teach all the shit > never fucking introspect

Modality (MM MF FM FF) is based upon the orientation of your sensing function and your extroverted decider function, so I'm 'FF' because I have feminine Fe and Si... but I lead with masculine Ti and Ne - another reason I appear so EJ, because imma punch every motherfucker in the face.

##### think again losers
Hey Pmj, long time no see

Is the 95% inter-rater reliability demonstrably 'blind'? If so, that's pretty impressive, and a more convincing result than anything else Jung related I know of.

#### Artsu Tharaz

##### Resident Resident
Animal ordering, function modality, etc.

For example, a traditional INTP is more about CS/B(P)- consume first, then sleep energy (organising known information for the self), then sharing information, then expending energy in reality.

I'm CP/B(S), so I consume > do all the shit > teach all the shit > never fucking introspect

Modality (MM MF FM FF) is based upon the orientation of your sensing function and your extroverted decider function, so I'm 'FF' because I have feminine Fe and Si... but I lead with masculine Ti and Ne - another reason I appear so EJ, because imma punch every motherfucker in the face.
Ok, so if the first jumper is, say, Pi+Ji, then the second jumper must have either Pi or Ji in it, correct? i.e. cannot be Pe+Je (I'm using the terms I'm familiar with, and I assume you are too, forgive meh), and I infer that if one function, say Ti, is masculine, then its opposite, in this case Fe, would be feminine - correct?

edit: Pod'lair talks about modulation, i.e. using the 3rd and/or 4th function. Is this theory suggesting that people who seem to overuse their 3rd/4th function may not be in some unhealthy state of mind, but that's just how they naturally are?

#### PmjPmj

##### Full of stars.
Hey Pmj, long time no see

Is the 95% inter-rater reliability demonstrably 'blind'? If so, that's pretty impressive, and a more convincing result than anything else Jung related I know of.
Yup. Check their site out - if you dig around you'll find plenty of info on their methods.

They're currently training people so they can eventually go to science with their findings / demonstrate objectivity (hence the name). It's all very compelling so far.

Ok, so if the first jumper is, say, Pi+Ji, then the second jumper must have either Pi or Ji in it, correct? i.e. cannot be Pe+Je (I'm using the terms I'm familiar with, and I assume you are too, forgive meh), and I infer that if one function, say Ti, is masculine, then its opposite, in this case Fe, would be feminine - correct?

edit: Pod'lair talks about modulation, i.e. using the 3rd and/or 4th function. Is this theory suggesting that people who seem to overuse their 3rd/4th function may not be in some unhealthy state of mind, but that's just how they naturally are?

Sorry, skimming here (time) but 'jumpers' aren't only a thing, so far they account for around 50% of all types. Just in the small facebook group we have ENTPs who are Ne/Fe, ENFPs who are Ne/Te, ESTJs who are Te/Ne, INFJs who are Ni/Ti... aaaand so on.

#### Artsu Tharaz

##### Resident Resident
Sorry, skimming here (time) but 'jumpers' aren't only a thing, so far they account for around 50% of all types. Just in the small facebook group we have ENTPs who are Ne/Fe, ENFPs who are Ne/Te, ESTJs who are Te/Ne, INFJs who are Ni/Ti... aaaand so on
I must have got the term wrong. I meant the Sleep/Consume/Blast/Play thing. Any type can have any of those 4 as their 1st consideration, yes?

#### PmjPmj

##### Full of stars.
I must have got the term wrong. I meant the Sleep/Consume/Blast/Play thing. Any type can have any of those 4 as their 1st consideration, yes?

#### PmjPmj

##### Full of stars.
Some of these terms have been updated (I was an early adopter) but for reference, here's my rundown:

#### PmjPmj

##### Full of stars.
... and my wife's:

#### Pizzabeak

##### Prolific Member
@Pizzabeak I generally see you as an INFJ.

I can look through some of your posts and give a text based analysis, if you'd like.

Don't people use all cognitive functions? I thought our type just represents our default /most used mode. I can't see why some people can't be in between two modes. Maybe you are a hybrid of INTP + INTJ, and can flip flop easily between the two. The RC system would classify you as a INT!
This sounds like it's in the right direction, or at least bears a resemblance to some of my own intuitions.

I took the test and got INTP. Sadly, it's hard to be certain sometimes and I could be J. Or, even INFP but probably not. It said my Ti isn't as strong as it should be, but that Fe is still last so it's INTP. It then said my Ne was slightly overdeveloped, but I don't think it's my first function, or that I'm an extrovert (although people want me to be?), even if ENXP are the most introverted extroverts.
My oldest brother got ENTP so he could be one. Growing up, it makes sense. So I don't particularly think it's me, but it's all relative.
When it gets to me (the loop) I can't tell if in my head it's Ni. I don't think I aim to use it as much but it's hard to tell whether I have inferior Se or if it is Fe. My Te more or less sucks so I could be INTJ or not. Does anyone know? I never thought about it this much. INFJ actually seems like a possibility because Ti but INTJ appears more likely than that.
list even more types that you can be...
I have always known that I'm INTP, because I compared to people than I knew. So I'm very similar to ISTPs and we understand each other near perfectly, so this way I learned I can't be INTJ, because ISTJ people are so different from me, much much more than ISTPs. Discover which people are similar to you and you can perfectly determine your type.
How can you be sure of the type of others if you're not yet sure of your own type?
Please do, although I don't particularly agree with that method of analysis. Seems to not account for a number of possible variables.

I'm pretty sure of my type actually, and pretty much regard anything else/most other stuff as a joke. Once you have an understanding of the cognitive functions you can pretty much see right through any requests people try to harbor. I thought I used Si/Ne but it could be Ni.

#### Artsu Tharaz

##### Resident Resident
Please do, although I don't particularly agree with that method of analysis. Seems to not account for a number of possible variables.

I'm pretty sure of my type actually, and pretty much regard anything else/most other stuff as a joke. Once you have an understanding of the cognitive functions you can pretty much see right through any requests people try to harbor. I thought I used Si/Ne but it could be Ni.
I don't think you're an INFJ any more, after doing the analysis. I did a rough analysis but I won't post it because it's too uncertain at this point. The method does work (at least in theory), but that doesn't mean I've developed enough to apply it properly, so I'll have to wait until I'm better at it.

#### PmjPmj

##### Full of stars.
Go for it I personally can't be arsed. Too busy to go in to any real depth.

#### Artsu Tharaz

##### Resident Resident
Go for it I personally can't be arsed. Too busy to go in to any real depth.
I won't be making a thread for it. I feel like the creator of a thread for a particular system should be a person who actually knows a decent amount about the system.

--

I like what I've seen so far with this system - it's certainly made some contributions that I'm going to be investigating* to see if they hold weight, but I don't think they have "the" method of typing. I think they just happen to have made a fairly solid way of typing people which just happens to be very consistent between the different raters, because that's how it was designed. They know what they're looking for, because they decided between themselves what to look for, but they're not necessarily looking for the right things, i.e. while this system is incredibly reliable, I doubt that it's equally valid, although there likely is a quite impressive level of validity, nonetheless.

* I'm referring in particular to the idea of 4 Animals going in an order of use, as well as the genderisation of cognitive functions

#### PmjPmj

##### Full of stars.
Yeah, meh. Who cares?

Everyone can do everything, ergo fuck it.

#### Pizzabeak

##### Prolific Member
Yeah, meh. Who cares?

Everyone can do everything, ergo fuck it.
So you got the classic INTP+ESTJ combo? They say ENTJ is also good with it. Why did you think she was ENTJ or that you were INTJ too? What makes Ni seem like Si? They're both Pi and in the according types it usually just means someone is disappointed in the amount of spectacular results of witnessing N in action itself.

#### PmjPmj

##### Full of stars.
Yeah, meh. Who cares?

Everyone can do everything, ergo fuck it.
So you got the classic INTP+ESTJ combo? They say ENTJ is also good with it. Why did you think she was ENTJ or that you were INTJ too? What makes Ni seem like Si? They're both Pi and in the according types it usually just means someone is disappointed in the amount of spectacular results of witnessing N in action itself.
Yeah allegedly so, but there's some debate around whether I'm Ne/Ti or Ti/Ne... but it doesn't matter either way, because even if I am Ti/Ne I'm still wired like Ne/Ti. Long story.

Re: the wife, it's stereotypes innit. The MBTI wankery teaches you that Si-folk are dumbfucks, so I assumed Ni because here she is - always future focused, always surging forward to achieve her vision and blah.

Turns out her Ne is great though, so she's pretty N by default. Not a jumper - but not far off.

#### redbaron

##### Worst Mod Ever™
a few points:

- 95% internal consistency would demonstrate that a system can reliably produce the same result, but not that the system is accurate

- the methodology of how they reach 95% isn't demonstrated or outlined in detail and given that it's behind a paywall that costs $90 an hour or$350 a month (in weekly sessions) to be made privy to, this looks like the work of fucking charlatans

- apparently they don't know the difference between the words, "ensure" and, "insure". so academic, wow so science, very smartness

- there's lots and lots of use of the word 'objective' but very little extrapolation to their methodology or demonstration of such objectivity

i'm going to conclude that these people actually don't even believe the shit that they're shovelling to people. they've developed a system that has (or that they can sell as having and people will buy) internal consistency, which to the average person looks a lot like objectivity - but while anything truly demonstrably objective will have internal consistency, it doesn't mean that everything with internal consistency is objective. this subtle but very disingenuous advertisement and appeal to objectivity on a false premise is nothing but filthy and exploitative marketing

*barf*

#### Polaris

So it appears this "Objective Personality" group only have two people ('operators') trained to do the interviews, which means the test is already then loaded with observer bias. In their methods explanation it is certainly not clear how many operators were used over time, but it appears to be just the two.

To be able to eliminate observer bias further, it would require a group of at least 30 trained and untrained observers for every interview subject, because you are also testing the test, not just the subjects. The questions should be identical for all interviews, and there should be questions incorporated to pick up contradictions; for example, if one question concerns whether someone prefers to deal with abstract theory or factual data, another question should test for this subliminally. It is pretty obvious when someone avoids abstract theorising. Or present two different problems to solve; one that incorporates abstraction, and one that incorporates factual data - see which one they prefer to answer, and have several of these throughout the test, masked as standard questions. Even then, someone well versed in personality theory would pick up on it, and could potentially skew the data.

However, how do we know that a certain function is indeed reflective of a particular neurological process? Unless you can test this neurologically, you cannot differentiate the functions objectively - you are merely assuming a correlation, not demonstrating it.

Also, the whole idea about seeing emerging patterns in their results is equally questionable. How do we know, from using the same two operators the whole time, that there wasn't some kind of bias that caused them to select functions based on the subject's looks, and not the other way around? There's a small group of bearded guys and a small group of blonde, smiling ladies looking very similar. Chances are very high that the already trained operators would have more or less unconscious preconceived ideas about gender, looks and personality traits based on certain stereotypes. Even in their voice-only tests, you would still be able to pick up on cues that would result in involuntary associations with certain stereotypes.

They call their method "double-blind", but I don't think they understand what double-blind means. All they did was put two operators in two different rooms. Their results became increasingly accurate, which would be expected when they are, in fact, both trained by the same people. All that is happening is that the confirmation bias is cemented further. A truly unbiased test should be able to be used by anyone, trained or untrained with the same results.

If thirty untrained operators were able to achieve a statistically significant result after only a brief introduction to the test and its interpretations, then you would have a test seemingly reliable enough for use by anyone. But it would have to have the necessary assumptions of neurological accuracy established first.

A friend of mine tested this. He was becoming increasingly frustrated with the highly unreliable method of assessing abrasion on fossil bones. So he put thirty people in a room; both professional and unprofessional, and got them to assess abrasion on the same 50 bones of varying abrasion intensity, using this method that has been blindly trusted for more than two decades.

His results concluded that there was significant variability both intra-professional, and intra-non professional. When he tested the two groups against each other there was as much variability and bias in the professional as in the non-professional group.

His point: trusted scientific tools (of a qualitative nature) are not necessarily trustworthy due to human bias. A more reliable method would be quantitative.

My comment: even if you develop a quantitative tool that supposedly eliminates this bias - what is the true nature of the objective reality that you are measuring against? Every serious scientist should be aware of this problem.

...anyway,

A double-blind study would ideally have operators who are both familiar with, and operators who are unfamiliar with the test's hypotheses and objectives. The same should go for the test subjects. One would then run statistical tests of the two groups against each other, as well as intra-group, and then you would repeat the exact same study in different social and cultural settings.

In other words, you would have several tests: thirty trained observers test n subjects who are familiar with the test's aims; thirty untrained observers test the same subjects. Then, reverse that. Finally, mix them all up, and re-run the test on the same subjects as well as on a complete new group of subjects.

Finally, on that last point, they have not clarified how their "random" subjects were chosen. What is their definition of random? How do we know how many of the subjects had a-priori knowledge of the test's objectives and more importantly, whether the subjects were already familiar with personality theory? For those test subject who were, their answers would naturally be biased towards a personal favourable outcome, so the accuracy in these cases would be questionable.

Even at that point, the test could still be biased due to the questions themselves. Are they leading questions? Are the questions accurately reflective of the emerging traits? How were these traits defined, and by whom?

Finally, what gets the Charlatan warning bells ringing to the point of breaking the sonic barrier: single "coaching" session: $89/hour, monthly:$249/week; weekly class: \$19/month.
...

I am not discounting this method completely. In fact, I think it is a welcome improvement. But their claim to empirical science is questionable, for the reasons outlined above. It really bothers me that they are already profiteering on a method that is not scientifically recognised.

Ugh...tl;dr....I've obviously lost my faith in typology....