Personality Cafe banner

What do you think of DaveSuperPowers ObjectivePersonality.com

  • Never heard of him

    Votes: 3 23.1%
  • I think his earlier videos are useful but later ones are innacurate

    Votes: 2 15.4%
  • I think he has found some new things about the functions

    Votes: 2 15.4%
  • I don't think he is accurate at all

    Votes: 6 46.2%

  • Total voters
    13
  • Poll closed .
1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
499 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
So I decided I wanted to understand the different fuctions better (Fe/Fi Se/Si etc). I found this really fun youtube channel called DaveSuperPowers, and he breaks down the different functions in a way I could understand and found interesting. However recently, I found out that some of his views on the matter are not conventional.

So I'm curious, if you have watched his vids, what do you think of them? Are the earlier ones accurate/any of them accurate? Should I throw away everything I learned and start over? Do you think he's tapped into something new about the stacks?

Please let me know what you think!

https://www.youtube.com/user/DaveSuperPowers/about
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,958 Posts
It's true, he's not in line with the MBTI. E.G. Organization is always judgement or a judging function in every theory (MBTI dichotomies, Jung's original theory, even Socionics). But Dave has decided that it's introversion, which includes Si and Ni - two perception functions.

He lies about being scientific - he's not even peer reviewed. He is a perfect example of the pseudoscience that he criticises.

He uses buzzwords like "objectively typing people" to make himself sound smart and convincing. He throws in humour, charm, confidence, and makes everything simple and easy to understand... to persuade you to give him money. I pity anyone who does.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
499 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
So one thing he said was that Se/Ne is about gathering the information, whereas Si/Ni is about organizing the information. Is this wrong then?

I did think it was interesting how he said he was being "scientific" but then it seemed like only he and his gf were the ones typing people. So I didn't see how they could exactly do that. Since I am just learning about the functions, I supppose I should look elsewhere then. Maybe once I learn the functions well, I can rewatch his videos, and see what his perspective is without having to worry about what I am learning.

It's a pity, because his way of explaining things are very easy to understand.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,013 Posts
I voted I think his earlier videos are useful but later ones are innacurate. He made some really good videos, disappeared, and returned to what seems like a money grab. I was excited to see him return, but when it seemed like it was a money grab I stopped watching his videos. If his stuff is scientific he should be able to create a test based on it, but sending a video in with cash...meh.
 

·
Plague Doctor
Joined
·
5,927 Posts
Dave & Shannon are scam artists. Me and my best friend signed up for their private classes for about two months - it was horrendous. They're so wrong it hurts.

Here is a review of their private lessons on Medium. This was written by my partner, @hornpipe2. As it says at the bottom, he got help writing it from me and my best friend. It's thorough and summarizes everything that is wrong with Objective Personality:

A Critique of Objective Personality
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
499 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Dave & Shannon are scam artists. Me and my best friend signed up for their private classes for about two months - it was horrendous. They're so wrong it hurts.

Here is a review of their private lessons on Medium. This was written by my partner, @hornpipe2. As it says at the bottom, he got help writing it from me and my best friend. It's thorough and summarizes everything that is wrong with Objective Personality:

A Critique of Objective Personality
Wow, I just finished reading the article! Very interesting. I would like to think they are good people, but it seems they're trying to sell a product that they haven't even finished. Also, it makes sense that if the basics are faulty, anything built on that will also be faulty.

Thank you for the article!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,333 Posts
Not sure why this thread was posted twice but anyways.

I think like all these MBTI Youtube gurus he started off just fine, sticking to the theory as we know it. But then He (and others) realize that there thousands of channels like theirs doing the same thing, so they come up with their own spin on it, effectively ruining everything in the process and getting their own heads up their asses. With the final product being I'm the end of all ends on this subject matter so you need to start paying me...

In his case, it's kinda lazy. He just repackages all the stuff we know and puts another name on it as a desperate attempt to make it sound like he came up with something new. For instance he calls the judging functions ''Deciders'' and the perceiving functions ''Observers''. What's the point of that exactly? Is it supposed to make me go ''Ooooooooooh now I get it!! So much clearer with these new and shiny definitions"?

Where he particularly lost me was his ''function jumping'' theory. Which is nothing more than bullshit to proclaim himself as a special type of INTJ (because simply being INTJ is not special enough in the MBTI community).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
499 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
@Stevester yeah I posted the thread twice by accident. :/ I actually do think that renaming the judging function as a "decider" and perceiving function as an "observer" does make more sense. Especially with today's vernacular, "judging" can have a negative connotation, so for people who are just looking into MBTI I think that can cause some confusion.

But from the article that @brightflashes recommended talked about how the couple seem to take different theories, rename it, then call it their own. Which I am not a fan of, as it's important to give credit. So I understand what you are saying.

So do you think his "function jumping" theory is bs then? The article brightflashes mentioned said,

For example: D&S have taken to using the so-called Grant Stack to organize Jung’s functions in a type. Under this system, an introverted function MUST follow an extroverted one in order. An ordering of “Ti, Ne, Si, Fe” is valid, while “Ti, Si, Ne, Fe” is considered invalid. However, they go on to add the notion of “Jumpers”. This is a person who “jumps” over their second function and engages by using the third function. So, while their stack is “Ti, Ne, Si, Fe”, they may “jump” Ti -> Si, then Ne Fe… effectively, the second (invalid) stack above. In reviewing the published typings, they strike approximately a 50/50 balance between Jumper and Not-Jumper.

In other words, they have taken a concept into their system (Grant Stack), then added an additional concept (Jumper) specifically to undo the limitations of the first concept!
I think it's easy to say people of the same type aren't going to be clones of each other...but they use similar processes of thinking to reach their conclusions (though their conclusions may be different). So is this idea that a person might prefer their tertiary function over their secondary function bs then?
 

·
Plague Doctor
Joined
·
5,927 Posts
@Sophi

"function jumping" is already a part of the original typology theory. Jung believed that the first function was in the preferred attitude and the second function had a bit more of a sliding scale, but also was in the preferred attitude. It wasn't until Myers came along that the idea the auxiliary could be in the opposite attitude came into typology theory.

I don't think it's bs, personally, but that's because there is a theory out there that explains why this isn't bs. And, it really isn't "jumping" to the tertiary, but just realigning that for introverts, it's II/EE and for extraverts it's EE/II.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
I watched a few of his new videos and they were not making sense to me. Like others have said before, I get this feeling that he is just putting a spin on something and innovating just for the sake of innovating.

You now have people on MBTI Database using his "objective" typing method which appears to combine the Big 5, Socionics, and his own spin on it as well; it's a mess and it's going to lead to mistyping. I have seen people type others making statements like "Oh, this guy is an INFJ Ti-subtype!" No, that person is an INFJ. Nothing more, nothing less. "But his Ti is boosted!" The Ni-Ti loop exists, look it up. Not all INFJs are the same, however. The 16 types are models that pretty much explain the anatomy of our personality. With his typing method, people are now typing others's motivations with the functions, but that is what the Enneagram is for. The Enneagram is a separate tool, and while there are CORRELATIONS with certain MBTI types/functions with Enneagram types and wings, we should all know that correlation is not causation.

So, in essence:

MBTI/cognitive functions = the anatomy of our personality
Enneagram = the physiology of our personality

This is just what I've deduced from all this.
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top