Scientific Approach
Introduction to OPS: Part 1
What is the Objective Personality System?
This is the first part in a series that explains the basics of the Objective Personality System (OPS).
This series explains every part of the system, the methods and the terminology, step by step.
If you're new here and unfamiliar with the OPS, this is the place to start.
This article is probably the most important one in the series.
It explains the approach behind the Objective Personality System, why it's scientific and what makes it different from other systems such as MBTI.
But we’re also going to discuss what it currently lacks to be considered fully scientific.
Pseudo-science vs science
What's the difference between a pseudo-scientific and a scientific theory of personality?
The hallmarks of a pseudoscientific personality theory are
the lack of testable hypotheses,
inconsistent results,
that they're based on anecdotal evidence or personal experience,
a lack of empirical support,
a lack of reliability and validity,
they're based on speculative or unproven theories,
there is a lack of peer review and scientific scrutiny,
and they're generally not accepted by the scientific community.
This is Meyer-Briggs in a nutshell, or the Enneagram, or Astrology.
Nothing is set up to be testable or falsifiable in the first place, everything is anecdotal, and there’s nothing of substance that could be accepted by the scientific community.
A scientific personality theory in comparison, something like the Big Five, is…
based on testable and falsifiable hypotheses.
It shows consistent and replicable results.
It's based on objective data and research evidence.
It has strong empirical support.
It displays high reliability and validity.
It's based on well-established theories and concepts.
It has been peer-reviewed and is subject to scientific scrutiny.
And it's widely accepted in the scientific community.
What does that mean for OPS? Is it scientific?
Well, in our opinion, the answer is: Not quite. At least not yet.
What’s basically missing are the last three steps. There aren’t any peer-reviewed studies and it isn’t subject to scientific scrutiny yet.
Some of the concepts OPS is based on, like the human needs, draw from other well-established ideas such as Maslow's hierarchy of needs. But the concepts themselves are not scrutinized and completely accepted by the scientific community.
But, and that’s a big BUT, it has all the other hallmarks of a scientific personality theory. This makes it fundamentally different from other theories.
Objective Typing and Falsifiable Hypotheses
The core of the Objective Personality System is Objective Typing.
The Objective Typing method gives us testable and falsifiable hypotheses and with that represents a fundamental difference to other personality systems, including the Big 5.
In other systems, you usually have a self-report or one person typing another. They might be wrong, they might be right. It isn't even clear what that means because “getting someone’s type right” isn’t a falsifiable statement.
Objective Typing works differently. Here we have at least two operators who type a third person independently without influencing each other.
Strictly speaking, they’re not guessing someone’s type, they’re guessing what their partner will guess. This guess can be proven wrong by the other partner and is therefore falsifiable.
This shifts personality typing from something that is purely speculative, opinion based and subjective to something objective that can be systematised and replicated.
Following this approach, the founders of OPS, Shan and Dave, were able to achieve consistent results and predict each other’s guess correctly with high probability.
This allowed them to gather objective data over time to track their progress in refining this method and their skills. This data constitutes a body of empirical evidence.
Validity
This brings us to the topic of validity which is another big aspect that sets OPS apart from other systems. It displays several measures of validity, to different degrees.
The central aspect of validity follows from the Objective Typing method. It’s the so-called inter-rater reliability: can two or more independent raters agree on their assessments to a high degree?
Shan and Dave proved that they could and more people are starting to get similar results. This is a good indication that OPS captures something meaningful.
But there are other measures of validity to be considered. Another important one is construct validity: is the measure really measuring what it claims to measure?
So, what does OPS measure? Your OPS type captures the patterns of your reoccurring subjective core fears that drive your behaviour.
It looks at what you do and what you say and, most importantly, at how you do and how you say the things you do and say. In Objective Typing, we try to recognise the Why beneath the What of your actions and words.
Furthermore, we compare your fears to those of other people. We put your subjective emotional patterns on a spectrum to give meaning to the assertion that you are particularly afraid of something.
Because everyone is afraid of, let’s say, judgement. But out of 10,000 people are you among those who are most afraid of judgement and is this a reoccurring pattern that holds you back?
Your OPS type captures these patterns and they determine the role you play in the tribe.
Knowing someone’s type, we are actually able to predict someone’s words and actions, in broad strokes, and their reoccurring life patterns. This is how we can show construct validity.
It actually captures someone’s emotional core patterns because we can predict the behaviour that is driven by these patterns.
But there are more ways to measure validity. Another one is criterion-related validity: Does the measure correlate with outcomes that are relevant to the construct being measured?
In the case of OPS, the answer is again, “Yes.” There are other factors that are not used in the Objective Typing process but correlate with someone’s emotional patterns, behaviour and the role they play in the tribe.
Two of those would be physical looks and sexual orientation. It emerged from the data of similarly typed people, that certain looks and physical attributes cluster around certain types.
It’s the same with being a member of the LGBTQ+ community. Certain types have a much higher percentage of LGBTQ+ members than others.
Conclusion
In a nutshell: is OPS scientific?
Well, there aren’t any peer-reviewed studies and it’s not widely accepted by the scientific community. But this is due to the fact that the system is still in its infancy. It’s simply too early for that.
However, it has the potential to become accepted by the scientific community in the future because it is firmly rooted in a scientific approach.
It’s based on falsifiable hypotheses that allow for gathering objective data. For trained operators, the system shows consistent and replicable results, and it displays several indicators for validity.
All of which differentiates OPS from other theories of personality that can only be called pseudo-scientific.
To conclude: more research is needed, but the future looks bright, and we want to be part of it.
