Why I Care About IDRlabs Typology

By S. Kim

One might ask, "Why do you care about IDRlabs' typings?" After all, the typological community is just one big mess of disagreement after disagreement, with not much of a consensus on even some of the baseline fundamental aspects of the theory. As an IDRlabs commentor has stated, "typology is an inherently subjective, constantly changing field where everyone has their own highly variable ideas." In other words, one's conception of a type will generally differ from another person's conception of a type. As IDRlabs themselves has said, "one’s theoretical framework for approaching typology can be likened to the language one speaks. As anyone who speaks more than one language will know, there is not always the possibility of a perfect translation. Yet we all use the same terminology; INFJ, ESTP, Fe, Fi, and so on. What you get when you see an online free-for-all discussion about someone’s type is like 20 people, all shouting at one another because they think they understand what the other party is saying when they hear the letters 'INFJ', but in reality they are all speaking different languages."

However, the system IDRlabs has put forth has made the most sense to me and resonated with me the most (minus their axes theory, I find it a bit too heavy-handed. But I get it, Heracletian yada yada yada). I have never seen a typological system, based on Carl Jung's theory, that had as much sophistication, originality, and rigor as the one IDRlabs has put forth. In my opinion, they are better than most, if not all, of the typology sites I have encountered with regards to their methodology and research. They're clearly very knowledgeable in fields outside of Jungian Typology (such as Psychology and the Social Sciences), and I appreciate their use of scientifically supported theories such as the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (MCMI) for assessing aspects of personality that lie outside the realm of Jungian Typology, rather than using other typological theories like the Enneagram or Socionics. I also appreciate their minimalist approach to type (i.e., type doesn't exhaust a person's personality), which appeals to me much more than the black-and-white claims that reduce the complexity of a human's entire personality. 

But another aspect that is worth mentioning is their comments section. I get a different vibe from their comment section compared to most other typology forums (though you will still get the odd bad comment here and there). There are valuable insights that show up in the responses to questions posed by some of the readers, as well as well-written arguments and counterarguments, whether it'd be by the admins themselves or the commentors. It's clear that the admins and some of the people who followed IDRlabs are very bright people.

So, while the typological community as a whole can't seem to come to a consensus on anything, we can argue for or against someone's type to IDRlabs using the framework that they themselves have provided, and there are a few individuals that I disagree with regards to IDRlabs typings and I am here to offer my perspective.

Regarding some of my gripes with them, I already mentioned my slightly negative take on their axes theory. Their axes theory kind of makes sense in a broad and subtle perspective, but it breaks down when considered more important than that. I think the issue, from my standpoint, comes from them (and a number of their followers) overemphasizing and prioritizing certain functions and types over others in regards to how the axes represented types. As for another minor gripe, some of their older articles are admittedly quite weak (like their Christopher Hitchens one), but with the amount of great free articles they have, they more than make up for it in that department.