Research · Objective Personality System

The science behind
the system.

The full architecture of OPS — what it is, how it works, why it's structurally different, and what we're doing to validate it formally.

For researchers, psychologists, and engineers who want to go deep.

512

Distinct cognitive types across 9 binary dimensions

2⁹

Fully falsifiable — every coin has a provable opposite

2014

Year formal double-blind typing began under Dave Powers & Shannon Renee

Peer-reviewed papers published on OPS — the gap we are closing

The full type space — 128 function types × 4 modalities

Full OPS Type Space 512

Di+Oi · Sleep				Di+Oe · Consume				De+Oi · Blast				De+Oe · Play
SC/B(P)	SC/P(B)	SB/C(P)	SB/P(C)	CS/B(P)	CS/P(B)	CP/S(B)	CP/B(S)	BS/C(P)	BS/P(C)	BP/S(C)	BP/C(S)	PC/S(B)	PC/B(S)	PB/S(C)	PB/C(S)
Fi/Ni	Fi/Ni	Fi/Ni	Fi/Ni	Fi/Ne	Fi/Ne	Fi/Ne	Fi/Ne	Ni/Fe	Ni/Fe	Ni/Fe	Ni/Fe	Fe/Ne	Fe/Ne	Fe/Ne	Fe/Ne
Fi/Si	Fi/Si	Fi/Si	Fi/Si	Fi/Se	Fi/Se	Fi/Se	Fi/Se	Ni/Te	Ni/Te	Ni/Te	Ni/Te	Fe/Se	Fe/Se	Fe/Se	Fe/Se
Ni/Fi	Ni/Fi	Ni/Fi	Ni/Fi	Ti/Ne	Ti/Ne	Ti/Ne	Ti/Ne	Si/Fe	Si/Fe	Si/Fe	Si/Fe	Ne/Fe	Ne/Fe	Ne/Fe	Ne/Fe
Ni/Ti	Ni/Ti	Ni/Ti	Ni/Ti	Ti/Se	Ti/Se	Ti/Se	Ti/Se	Si/Te	Si/Te	Si/Te	Si/Te	Ne/Te	Ne/Te	Ne/Te	Ne/Te
Si/Fi	Si/Fi	Si/Fi	Si/Fi	Ne/Fi	Ne/Fi	Ne/Fi	Ne/Fi	Fe/Ni	Fe/Ni	Fe/Ni	Fe/Ni	Se/Fe	Se/Fe	Se/Fe	Se/Fe
Si/Ti	Si/Ti	Si/Ti	Si/Ti	Ne/Ti	Ne/Ti	Ne/Ti	Ne/Ti	Fe/Si	Fe/Si	Fe/Si	Fe/Si	Se/Te	Se/Te	Se/Te	Se/Te
Ti/Ni	Ti/Ni	Ti/Ni	Ti/Ni	Se/Fi	Se/Fi	Se/Fi	Se/Fi	Te/Ni	Te/Ni	Te/Ni	Te/Ni	Te/Ne	Te/Ne	Te/Ne	Te/Ne
Ti/Si	Ti/Si	Ti/Si	Ti/Si	Se/Ti	Se/Ti	Se/Ti	Se/Ti	Te/Si	Te/Si	Te/Si	Te/Si	Te/Se	Te/Se	Te/Se	Te/Se

Each column = a distinct animal stack order. Italic headers = Info Dominant types. Each cell × 4 modalities (FF · FM · MF · MM) = 512 total. MBTI row = approximate correspondence only.

The structural contradiction at the foundation of personality science

You cannot see your own unconscious patterns

Psychology's core premise — the one Jung built his entire architecture on — is that the most important drivers of behaviour are unconscious. They were set before you were old enough to understand them. Your brain actively constructs a self-narrative that diverges from what is actually happening.

The primary instrument is self-report

The same person the theory says cannot see their own patterns is handed a 100-question questionnaire and asked to describe how they process information, make decisions, and relate to others. The entire $20B personality assessment industry is built on this structural contradiction.

Existing frameworks fail on their own terms

MBTI produces a different result for the same person up to 50% of the time on retest. The Big Five sacrifices structure for dimensionless scores that cannot be operationalized. Enneagram relies entirely on self-identification. None were designed to be measurement instruments that other things could be built on top of.

OPS: observer-based, binary, falsifiable by design

OPS assigns type through external observation by two independent typologists who work separately and compare. Every coin has a falsifiable opposite — you cannot confirm one side without cross-checking the other. The subject's disagreement with their type is expected, explained, and controlled for.

Framework comparison

Framework	Observer-based	Falsifiable	Retest stable	Programmable
MBTI	—	Partial	~50%	—
Big Five	—	—	Moderate	—
Enneagram	—	—	Low	—
OPS	Yes	9 binary coins	Untested *	By design

OPS has never been peer-reviewed — not because the methodology is weak, but because it is a practitioner-built framework with no institutional backing and no research pipeline. It was constructed through applied observation over a decade, typing thousands of subjects.

The methodological bones are there. Independent observation. Falsifiability. Replication protocol. Consistent definitions. What has never been done is formalising those methods into a study design and running the numbers. That is Phase 1.

* Untested because no formal study has been run. Phase 1 directly addresses this.

The architecture of OPS

The core mechanic — Saviors & Demons

Saviors

What a person actually does

Responsible, obvious, obligated — possessed by it

Actually doing it, may or may not see it or like it

What is being piled up and done more than others

All recurring problems come from overdoing this

Demons

What a person runs from

Blame, ignorance, awkward — running away from it

Dreams about it, someday, would like to be this

The void being left for others to fill

All recurring problems come from neglecting this

The 9 binary coins — each independently observable, each with a falsifiable opposite

Observer function

Sensing / Intuition

How information is gathered. S = physical, factual. N = abstract, conceptual.

Decider function

Thinking / Feeling

Basis of decisions. T = logic, what works. F = values, what matters.

Observer direction

Oi / Oe

Si/Ni (introverted — personal) vs Se/Ne (extroverted — external)

Decider direction

Di / De

Fi/Ti (personal standards) vs Fe/Te (tribe standards)

Lead function

Observer-lead / Decider-lead

Whether the first function is Observer (S/N) or Decider (F/T)

Energy dominance

Info-dom / Energy-dom

Consume+Blast in top 3 = Info-dom. Sleep+Play in top 3 = Energy-dom.

Sensory modality

Masculine-S / Feminine-S

Energetic charge of sensory function. M = non-moveable. F = moveable.

Decider modality

Masculine-De / Feminine-De

Energetic charge of extroverted decider (Fe or Te).

Animal stack order

Savior / Demon ordering

Ranked order of Sleep / Play / Blast / Consume — 8 possible arrangements.

2⁹ = 512

—

4 Letters × I/E = 8 Functions → 16 Types × Jumpers = 32 × 4 Animal orders = 128 × 4 Modalities = 512. Nine independent binary variables, every one externally observable, every one falsifiable.

The 8 cognitive functions — from Carl Jung, extended by OPS

Introverted Sensing

Safety in personal, proven, real physical structure. Builds inward from known facts.

Extroverted Sensing

Seeks new, cool experiences and real-world facts. Calibrates against the observable world.

Introverted Intuition

Safety in personal, abstract understandings. Converges inward into one model.

Extroverted Intuition

Seeks new patterns, connections, understandings. Diverges outward into possibilities.

Introverted Thinking

Holds self to personal standards of what is true. Builds private logical frameworks.

Extroverted Thinking

Respects the tribe's spectrum of reasons. Builds shared, external logical systems.

Introverted Feeling

Holds self to standards of what they love and value. Deep private value system.

Extroverted Feeling

Respects the tribe's values and feelings. Harmonises with group emotional state.

Blue underline = Observer (S/N) · Amber underline = Decider (F/T) · Everyone has exactly 1 Observer coin + 1 Decider coin = 4 functions total.

The 4 Quadras — function families

Alpha

Ti/Fe · Si/Ne

xNTP · xSFJ

Beta

Ti/Fe · Ni/Se

xSTP · xNFJ

Delta

Fi/Te · Si/Ne

xSTJ · xNFP

Gamma

Fi/Te · Ni/Se

xSFP · xNTJ

The 4 animals — information & energy patterns

Sleep

Oi + Di

Gathers known information privately, decides privately. The most introverted animal. Deep internal processing before acting.

Typing signal: same old story about me

Consume

Oe + Di

Gathers externally, decides internally. Absorbs broad new information to inform a private decision. Information-hungry by nature.

Typing signal: random story about me

Blast

Oi + De

Takes known internal information and broadcasts outward. Teaches, leads, shares — often before fully processing.

Typing signal: same old story about others

Play

Oe + De

Gathers externally, shares externally. The most extroverted animal — high social energy, learns and shares simultaneously.

Typing signal: random story about others

Sexual modalities — energetic charge of functions

Sensory ↑ F → M

Fem-S · Fem-De

1. Tester2. Visual3. Audio4. Kinesthetic

Fem-S · Mas-De

1. Visual2. Tester3. Kinesthetic4. Audio

Mas-S · Fem-De

1. Audio2. Kinesthetic3. Tester4. Visual

Mas-S · Mas-De

1. Kinesthetic2. Audio3. Visual4. Tester

← Fem-De

Mas-De →

Track two functions: the Sensory (Si or Se — savior or demon, doesn't matter) and the extroverted Decider (Fe or Te). Masculine = non-moveable, aggressive, holds on. Feminine = moveable, easy-going, lets go. Modalities are fully orthogonal to the 128 cognitive types — they stack on top.

The 4 social types — discovered 2022, orthogonal to cognitive type

Any of the 512 cognitive types can hold any social type. The same Ni/Fi can be a #1 or a #4. Friends/Flexing are on one coin; Specialize/Responsibility on another.

What makes OPS structurally different

Observer-based, never self-report

Two independent typologists observe the same subject without communicating, then compare coin-by-coin. The subject's self-report is data to be explained — not ground truth. Disagreement between observers means the coin is not assigned.

Every coin has a falsifiable opposite

Assigning Sensing as Savior requires demonstrating that Intuition is Demon. You cannot confirm one side without cross-checking the other. Unverifiable assignments are rejected. This is structural falsifiability — not a feature, a constraint.

Replication as the test

The same subject typed by different operators at different times should yield the same result. This is directly and completely testable — unlike MBTI, where the subject's mood on the day determines the output.

Precise, cross-referenced behavioural definitions

Every term has behavioural anchors built across thousands of typed subjects over a decade — the vocabulary required for a reliable, replicable measurement instrument. The critical number is Cohen's kappa per coin.

The methodological bones are already there. What has never been done is formalising those methods into a study design and running the numbers.

The critical number is Cohen's kappa — the inter-rater reliability coefficient for each of the 9 coins. If two independent typologists agree on coin assignments at a rate significantly above chance, the measurement instrument is real. That is the entire Phase 1 question.

One factor critical to study design: most subjects disagree with their assigned type when first presented with it. This is not noise — it is a core prediction of the system, and it needs to be explicitly controlled for in the validation design.

The scientific validation roadmap

The sequence below is the exact order required to build cumulative, defensible scientific literature — each phase depends on the results of the one before it.

Phase 1

Now → 12 months

Inter-Rater Reliability Studies

Double-blind typing sessions across 500+ participants. Compute Cohen's kappa for each of the 9 coins independently. If kappa holds above 0.6 (substantial agreement) across coins, the measurement instrument is real and publishable. This is the foundational study — without it, nothing downstream is credible.

Phase 2

12 – 24 months

Predictive Behavioural Experiments

If the 9 coins are real cognitive structures, they must predict something outside themselves. Pre-registered experiments: decision-making under constraint, information-seeking in novel environments, stress response profiles by type. If typed participants behave in the directions the system predicts — construct validity. If not — we learn exactly where the theory fails.

Phase 3

24 – 36 months

Longitudinal Stability

Retest the same typed participants over 2+ years. OPS claims types are structural — not moods, not states, not context-dependent preferences. If true, coin assignments should not drift. The direct falsification of MBTI's 50% retest problem.

Phase 4

36 months+

Neurological & Biological Correlates

Partner with neuroimaging labs to explore whether OPS coins correlate with measurable neural signatures — fMRI activation patterns, EEG differences, physiological stress markers. OPS claims types are genetic. This is where that hypothesis becomes directly testable.

"Until you make the unconscious conscious, it will direct your life, and you will call it fate."

— Carl Jung

Work with us

Researchers · Psychologists

We're designing the first formal validation studies now

If you work in psychometrics, personality science, or behavioural research and this problem interests you — we want to talk. Looking for collaborators on study design, not just advisors.

abhas@mahakram.in → Schedule 30 min →

ML Engineers · Builders

Building the classification engine from the ground up

Working at the intersection of computational modelling, NLP, and cognitive science. If you've been looking for a problem hard enough to be worth working on — this is it.