The Intricacies of Sub-Types and Weights in the 16 Personality Types Model
Howdy y'all! Today, we're gonna dive deep into the world of personality typology, specifically focusing on the 16 personality types and the concept of "sub-types." Now, if you ain't familiar with these terms, don't worry, we'll break it down like a slow-cooked brisket. Some professionals reckon that just having 16 types ain't enough to cover the full range of human behavior. They propose the idea of "sub-types." Think of these sub-types like different seasoning blends on your BBQ. You got your main type, but then there's a sub-type that adds a little extra kick or sweetness, explaining traits that the basic model might miss. You might be wondering why anyone would bother with sub-types. Well, introducing sub-types increases the complexity (or entropy) of the theory, making it harder to apply in real-life settings. It's like trying to manage a cookout with too many cooks. The main problem we face in turning typology from an experimental discipline into a scientific one is the lack of tools to get valid data about a person with a margin of error that's acceptable for practical use. Adding sub-types makes our already delicate model cumbersome and, more importantly, less valid because we don't have precise tools to measure them. It's like trying to measure the perfect amount of spice for a dish without a proper measuring spoon. In my humble opinion, the pure model of 16 personality types is plenty sufficient to categorize psychological patterns. The main issue experts try to resolve with sub-types is the significant mismatch between theory and the practical manifestation of types. This is essentially "fitting" the results, which isn't a bad thing per se – it's an ancient method of scientific development. Here at Opteamyzer, we aim to develop tools that bring the validity of our data to a level sufficient for industrial application. Instead of sub-types, we use the concept of "weights." In our 16 personality types test, we use weights ranging from 1 to 3 and from -1 to -3. So, during testing, you might get a clear answer on one channel, but with more or less intensity. For example, if you score "extrovert" = 1 and "introvert" = -2, you end up with "introvert" = -1. The maximum weight for introversion would be -3. The manifestations of introversion at -1 are less pronounced than at -3, but it doesn't change the final outcome – the person is an introvert in both cases. It's important to understand the dynamics of information metabolism on a timeline where, in addition to time, we also consider a person's unique life experiences. Over time, due to life circumstances, events, and accumulated personal experience, the weights of parameters can change. Let me illustrate with my own example. In the first half of my conscious life (approximately ages 12-36), I was a noticeable extrovert. Subjectively, on a +3/-3 scale, I'd assign my extroversion a weight of +2. However, with accumulated life experience, my lifestyle has become more introverted – I consciously limit my social circle and have no need for large gatherings in my neck of the woods. This led me to years of analyzing the concepts of extroversion and introversion and their overall usability. This research essentially determined the use of "weight" as the main parameter in the channel. Even while living an introverted life outwardly, I never stopped being an extrovert because the focus of my attention remained largely on the outside world. However, my extroversion weight has decreased to +1 over time. The weights of a channel depend on the intensity of the channel's qualities (extroversion/introversion). This intensity is usually higher in younger years, but not necessarily. Sometimes, it can be the opposite, and this is a topic that requires further research. In practical terms, using weights allows for a more nuanced understanding of personality types. Instead of pigeonholing someone into a rigid category, we acknowledge the fluidity and dynamic nature of human behavior. It's like knowing that BBQ sauce can be spicy but more or less intense, depending on how you tweak the recipe. As we move forward with our research and tools at Opteamyzer, our goal is to refine the accuracy of our data collection methods. We aim to create a framework that can adapt to individual differences while maintaining scientific rigor. This involves continuous testing, validation, and refinement of our models. In conclusion, while the concept of sub-types adds an interesting layer to the 16 personality types model, it also complicates things unnecessarily. By focusing on weights, we can achieve a more practical and scientifically valid approach to understanding personality. So next time you find yourself pondering over personality types, remember that sometimes, simpler is better – just like a good ol' Texas BBQ.Introducing Sub-Types
Why Bother with Sub-Types?
The Case Against Sub-Types
Opteamyzer's Goal
Understanding Weights
The Dynamics of Information Metabolism
A Personal Example
The Evolution of Weights
The Practical Application of Weights
The Future of Personality Typology
Conclusion