What Does “Objective Typing” Actually Mean?

In the previous post, I introduced the Objective Personality System (OPS) and its central claim: that it aims to reduce the subjectivity found in most personality systems.

But what does objective typing actually mean in practice?

The problem OPS is trying to solve

Most personality systems rely on self-typing. You take a test, read descriptions, and decide what fits you best. The issue, according to OPS, is that people are notoriously unreliable when judging themselves.

We tend to:

• - Over-identify with our strengths

• - Downplay our weaknesses

• - Confuse intention with behavior

• - Describe ourselves based on ideals rather than patterns

OPS argues that if personality typing depends on self-perception, it will always drift.

So instead of asking you who you think you are, OPS tries to observe what you repeatedly do.

How OPS attempts to create consistency

In OPS, typing is done through structured observation. Trained typers analyze recorded video of a person and track:

• - What topics they return to

• - What kinds of problems trigger emotional reactions

• - What they prioritize when forced to choose

• - Where they seem rigid versus flexible

The key difference is that multiple typers must independently agree on each personality “coin.” If they don’t agree, the type is not confirmed.

The idea is simple:
If several observers consistently reach the same conclusions about someone’s patterns, the result is less dependent on one person’s interpretation.

That process is what OPS calls objective.

Is it truly objective?

I personally don't think so — but this is where nuance matters.

Even if multiple observers agree, we are still dealing with:

• - Interpretation of behavior

• - Psychological pattern recognition

• - Human judgment

There is no brain scan. No biological marker. No mathematical formula producing a type.

So it may be more accurate to say OPS is trying to create inter-observer reliability, not scientific objectivity in the strict sense.

That doesn’t make the system useless. It just means the word “objective” should be understood in context.

Why this approach changes the experience

Because OPS focuses on observable behavior, typing often highlights:

• - What you complain about most

• - What drains you

• - Where you get stuck

• - What you avoid

This can feel confronting. Instead of flattering descriptions, the emphasis is often on imbalance and blind spots.

For some people, that makes OPS feel more grounded.
For others, it feels overly rigid, reductionist, or unnecessarily complex.

What this means for the rest of the series

Understanding what OPS means by “objective” is important before diving into the coins themselves.

In the next post, we’ll explore the foundation of the system: the core personality trade-offs — often called coins — that form the structure of every OPS type.

Because whether or not you agree with the label “objective,” the real substance of OPS lies in how it defines those trade-offs.