Challenges II
Introduction
As we have discussed earlier, the theory of a personality framework can largely determine whether it is effective or not. However, it’s not just the theory that matters.
Beyond the flaws in the theory of a personality framework, we often overlook many other important factors that should also be taken into account. If thinking and perception can vary so much from person to person, just imagine the differences across cultures.
Yet, we tend to forget the fact that individuals from other backgrounds are bound to see things differently than we do. After all, humanity as a whole exhibits many variations in the way we think, behave, and speak.
As such, let us delve deeper into these issues. One will realize that typology becomes exponentially complex as we begin to factor in these variations that are all too common in the human race.
Inadequate Context
“Would you rather stay at home or go to a party?”
We encounter this question all too often in online personality tests. The answer, however, is not as straightforward as it may seem. The best response to this would be, “It depends.” After all, how can anyone answer this question accurately without any context? Met with such an ambiguous question, people will simply answer based on their own subjective understanding, often leading to severely inaccurate results.
On top of that, self-assessments are also susceptible to another problem: individual biases. As humans, we are known to have numerous blind spots, which makes us highly subjective when evaluating ourselves. Our perspectives are shaped by a range of factors, such as our preconceptions, our desired strengths, and our despised weaknesses. With these influences in play, it’s no wonder that we are prone to mistyping ourselves.
To make matters worse, when test questions severely lack context, people can only apply their own. And the thing is, people tend to focus on their most recent attitudes when evaluating themselves. For example, if someone is trying to be more outgoing at the moment, there’s a high chance that they will self-identify as an extravert.
To illustrate this further, let’s imagine someone who just went through a rough day. In that state of mind, the person might feel a strong urge to be left alone for the rest of the night. So, when presented with a choice between going to a party or staying at home, even a social butterfly might opt for the more introverted choice—to stay at home.
This highlights two key issues. On one hand, questions that lack context can make it difficult for people to answer it accurately. On the other hand, the subjective judgment of an individual will greatly influence their perception of themselves. This may explain why it is so common for like-minded people to receive very different results, even though they took the exact same personality test.
Despite its problems, self-typing remains a crucial aspect of typology as it makes it accessible to a wider audience. Therefore, the responsibility falls on developers to improve the accuracy and reliability of personality tests by crafting questions that provide an adequate amount of context. The more detailed the elaborations, the easier it is for respondents to understand the question.
Some typology systems adopt a different approach. To tackle the problem of personal subjectivity, they offer one-to-one typing services, and some might even conduct it through phone or video calls. This, to us, is a significant leap forward in terms of objectivity because having an experienced typologist as a guide can substantially reduce the influence of personal bias.
However, it is still not foolproof. As mentioned previously, most people are inherently unaware of themselves, making them walking contradictions. Although an experienced typologist may be able to spot and point out most discrepancies, they are still limited to the individual's subjective perceptions of themselves.
Consider Individual X, who has been disorganized for much of his life. Despite being a messy person, Individual X decided to change his ways after being reprimanded at work. Soon after, he transformed into a detailed organizer, a 180-degree change from his former self.
Given his laid-back personality, organizing may not come naturally to him at all. However, if asked about his work ethic, he might describe himself to be relentlessly meticulous in his job. As his typologist, you may have no choice but to believe him. As such, even with professional help, Individual X might still end up being mistyped as someone who is highly conscientious and organized.
Alas, there’s no easy way around this. However, with plenty of communication and exploration from both sides, it can be addressed. As typologists, we should not be too quick to determine someone’s personality type. Only through patient exploration can we truly understand the motivations and nuances behind one’s behavior.
Typology becomes even more complicated when we take into account the diversity of people from all over the world. Typologists who lack exposure to cultures different from their own may not understand the context of people from other societies.
As we know, people often behave differently depending on their respective beliefs, customs, and cultural backgrounds. Undoubtedly, these differences can significantly influence their character.
For instance, Germans are often more direct than New Zealanders; Japanese people tend to be more reserved than Americans; Latin Americans are typically known for their easy-going nature, and Asians are generally perceived as industrious. While these examples may be broad generalizations, they do contain a certain degree of truth.
More often than not, inexperienced typologists may mistake a person's cultural norms as their personality type. For example, someone from a friendly and outgoing culture may seem like an extraverted Feeler at a glance, while someone from a reserved and practical culture might seem like an introverted Thinker instead.
If a professional typologist is not attentive enough, they will most likely overlook their client’s context. As a result, they end up mistyping individuals of other nationalities because they did not take their cultural background into consideration.
So, if we were to determine whether a Japanese woman is an introvert or an extravert, it would be unwise to use an American woman as reference. Because relative to an American, the Japanese woman will seem like an introvert in most cases.
Taking cultural context into account—that Japanese people are more reserved in general—a professional typologist will instead compare the Japanese woman to someone else from the same background. Only by doing so can one recognize the nuances in their personality type.
All in all, to obtain accurate results in typology, it is crucial for typologists to consider a person’s context. This involves the client’s self-understanding, feedback from their close friends, and the perspectives of an unbiased observer. Why is this important? Because clients know their own motivations best, but their close friends can help identify their blind spots. On top of that, an unbiased observer offers additional perspectives that may have been overlooked.
Therefore, it is evident that the obstacles in typology are difficult to surmount. It requires a lot of patience and self-exploration to uncover certain aspects of ourselves, especially the ones that we may not be aware of. As it is a tricky task to accomplish alone, we encourage you to seek help from others, such as your friends and a professional typologist to better triangulate your true personality type.
Complex Variations
The diversity of human behavior is truly astounding with billions of individuals each exhibiting their own unique traits and characteristics. Therefore, any attempt to classify the human race into just 16 personality types, let alone four distinct groups, is a gross oversimplification. Thus, it’s not surprising that many critics have taken aim at popular personality frameworks like MBTI and Socionics. The truth is, human beings are far too complex to be neatly boxed into a few simple categories.
Despite these criticisms, however, people still routinely misuse reductive personality types to judge others. Because of that, we often see individuals being defined by a handful of generalized traits that fail to capture the depth and nuance of their personalities.
Let’s take introversion and extraversion as an example. You have probably heard people say that they don’t quite fit into either category. That is because depending on the situation, people will express themselves differently. The truth is, no one is completely extraverted or introverted. Most people fall somewhere in between, as ambiverts.
This same principle applies for every other cognitive function. Healthy individuals have the capacity to express all functions, regardless of what their dominant traits may be. For instance, a Thinker can express emotions just as a Feeler is able to exercise logic.
As such, personality should not be viewed as a matter of simple binaries. Human behavior is rarely black or white; it is composed of many shades of gray, and people often fall somewhere in between the extremes of any given trait. Humans are so complex in fact, that we represent a whole spectrum of colors in the multidimensional grid of personality called the matrix of personality.
So if personality is so nuanced, the question is this: How do we accurately determine where a person falls within that complicated matrix? The answer largely depends on one’s innate preferences.
To illustrate this, have you ever met someone who fits perfectly into the Internet stereotype of a cold, logical Thinker? They may seem robotic on the surface, but underneath their cold-hearted demeanor, they are still humans who harbor feelings, even if they tend to push them aside.
Although they don’t prioritize their emotions in the same way a typical Feeler would, they can still connect with their feelings, and even empathize with others from time to time.
Such a phenomenon may be confusing. If this individual exhibits both Thinking and Feeling traits at different times, which personality type do they actually belong to? The answer to this dilemma lies in the way a personality trait is described. Is it specific enough to accurately define an individual’s fundamental behaviors?
By our definition, a Thinker is an individual who mainly relies on logical reasoning to make decisions. Hence, if someone is a Thinker, it only means that they have a preference for logic. It does not mean that they are bound to use logic, and nothing else. So, if a person strongly favors logic over emotions, they are most likely a Thinker.
It is important to note that people’s behavior can be influenced by various circumstances, causing them to express different characteristics at different times. But regardless of their actions, their innate preferences will eventually come to light. We can determine these preferences by studying the patterns of their behavior and identifying the subconscious motivations that fuel their actions in life.
As such, regardless of the complexity of human beings, everyone still has innate preferences that influence their actions and behavior, ultimately placing them on the multidimensional grid of personality.
The problem is that some frameworks fall short in painting a full picture of one’s personality type. These frameworks may only list out a person’s traits without explaining the underlying motivations that impact their behavior. This leaves people wondering who they truly are, as a general type description does not explain what drives them internally.
With that said, although the NXT personality framework only has 32 archetypes, we have managed to capture the complexity of human beings by analyzing each archetype’s inner nature. As such, the 32 personality types outlined in our framework are more than just caricatures of people. Instead, they illustrate the very essence of one’s personality by addressing the core motivation of each archetype.
Inevitably, we will encounter individuals who may act differently despite belonging to the same archetype. What could possibly cause these differences? Well, having grown up in varying environments, these individuals were most likely exposed to distinct cultures and experiences that left a significant impact on their personalities. Yet, when we look at these individuals closely, we can still identify many fundamental similarities between them, because at their core, their motivations are the same.
Our 32 archetypes are not intended to be hard and fast labels that confine people into fixed categories. Instead, to truly comprehend the complexity of human nature, we must discern a person’s core motivation, rather than just examining their surface-level behavior.
Recognizing the complexity of typology, we designed the NXT personality framework to be flexible and accessible to all. If you seek simplicity, the 32 archetypes can be condensed into four major clusters for easy understanding. But if you’re looking for a detailed breakdown of personality, the 32 archetypes can be dissected into 512 distinct personality types (exclusive of gender, cultural, and socioeconomic differences). By accounting the intricate variations surrounding personality, this level of depth can be achieved.
Both avenues have their own merits, and you are welcome to choose either one based on what you think suits you best. As long as you are open to learning, we are sure that the NXT personality framework will reveal to you a whole world of insights, along with actionable steps that can help you in your journey of self-growth.
People Problems
Sometimes, it is not the personality framework that drives people away from typology, but rather the individuals who use it.
Online communities dedicated to typology will often have passionate members who enjoy diving into technicalities and arguing about the accuracy of different personality theories. At healthy amounts, these discussions can engage the community by encouraging other members to think critically. However, when these debates evolve into heated arguments, they will intimidate those who are not well-versed in typology, driving them away.
While the pursuit of accuracy is commendable, it can be difficult to reach the truth when everyone is forming judgments according to their own personal and subjective criteria. As a result, these discussions often lead to nowhere as no one is willing to compromise. And why should they? From their point of view, they are accurate based on their own narrow definitions.
This leads to a huge disparity in understanding, fracturing the personality community into different factions, some of which are fiercely opposed to each other.
We harbor a similar concern. Like every other personality framework, the NXT framework has its own unique concepts, definitions, and terms that will differ from other personality theories. By introducing the NXT framework to the world, we understand that we are adding on to the massive pile of confusion that already exists.
Therefore, it is only time before we encounter personality fanatics who will tear down our framework just to lift up their own. Unfortunately, this mentality will only divide the personality community further. Although we may not agree with one another, in the grand scheme of things, we all share a common goal: to deepen our understanding of personality and to push forward the field of typology.
More importantly, each and every framework has its own merits. Even if we are proponents of different ideas, there is always something that we can learn from one another.
Therefore, as part of our internal policies, we refrain from criticizing other personality frameworks in a belittling manner. We have always made a conscious effort to avoid making jokes or negative comments about other theories as this is normally done in bad faith.
We do not believe in blowing out the candles of other typology systems to make ours shine brighter. Instead, we feel indebted to the countless systems that have preceded us. It is thanks to them that we have been able to come as far as we have today.
The Way Forward
As we lay out the challenges facing typology, we must not forget the shoulders that we stand on. Many pioneers in typology have laid the groundwork for the NXT personality framework. Without their efforts, we would have nothing to build on. Thus, we extend our sincerest gratitude to all who have contributed towards the advancement of typology, no matter how big or small.
What’s written here is a compilation of the biggest flaws from every typology system that we’ve come across. We do not intend to be mindless critics, and hence, we must clarify our purpose for doing so—to raise awareness and to propel typology forward.
To avoid misunderstandings, we would like to clarify that we recognize the strengths in every personality framework that has crossed our path. Undeniably, each one of these frameworks has contributed their own unique insights to the field of typology. However, we also acknowledge the fact that it is impossible to be flawless, especially when one is dealing with the intricacies of the human mind.
Given this perspective, although our system may seem perfect to us now, we refuse to be lulled into a false sense of confidence as doing so often breeds arrogance. If arrogance was to ever fester within our community, we will risk becoming blind to the faults within our system. This will bring about dire consequences, as our system will turn stagnant, leading to its decline.
As shown throughout history, the beliefs of mankind have always been proven wrong. The evolution of the atomic model is an excellent example of this. The atom was initially believed to be the smallest unit of matter; its indivisibility was taken as fact. Yet, about a century later, it was further subdivided into protons, neutrons, and electrons, proving this "fact” incorrect. Countless proposed theories were also disproved during the process of this discovery.
As of now, the quantum model of the atom is currently regarded as the most scientifically accurate atomic model. But who knows? We might stumble upon a model beyond quantum in the future. This teaches us an invaluable lesson: we can never be too sure about anything, as our knowledge continually evolves with time.
Neil Degrasse Tyson, a renowned astrophysicist and science communicator, eloquently puts it, “One of the great challenges in the world is knowing enough about a subject, to think you’re right; but not enough about the subject, to know you’re wrong.”
Hence, we look forward to collaborating with a global community in the future to learn and improve our understanding of typology. As we collect more data points on personality types, we hope to uncover deeper patterns beyond the ones that we have at the present, so that we can use them to improve our system.
As the future unfolds, it is inevitable that humans will have to evolve with the times. Although we have made leaps and bounds in the field of personality, we probably only know a fraction of the truth.
Therefore, we are curious and excited to unravel the discoveries that lie ahead. With the current exponential advancement in science, who knows what’s in store for typology? Only time will tell. But for now, we present to you the NXT personality framework.
Read next part → NXT Personality Framework