In this text I will explain my critic points about the typology system "Objective Personality".
At the beginning I need to say: Objective Personality has several interesting concepts that inspired me and I don't want to miss it on my journey, but I have grown further and these are my problems with OP:
This is rather a critic about the wording than about the content. Because even inside the OP system, there are so called glass lizards who have their first and fourth function activated and a middle function double activated. This means that they will have a stronger preference between their second and third than between their first and their fourth function, while OP will still call them as if their first function would be double activated.
This is especially a concept I consider toxic. Because it makes people overthink and doubt their reality without necessity.
There is actually an explanation for this phenomenon, and it's in how OP works: OP assumes that the first function is always activated, and the fourth never. Now the case will happen that the fourth function is a first or even double activated and the first isn't, then they have two options how they push it into the system. Either they pretend that the first function is actually a first savior, or they pretend that the fourth function is the first function. And if Shave take one way and the person that is to be typed takes the other, the result is that "they have typed themselves upside down". I've seen both cases happening multiple times. And in both cases, an inner voice in myself is screaming "You're both right!". This phenomenon has NOTHING to do with not knowing yourself well, it is a construct of systems.
In OP, there are only 4 functions per type, the 4 function stack we also learn at the beginning in MBTI. I think this is a problem because it dismisses that we actually have access to all 8, probably all 16 functions in us. As soon as not all functions someone uses fit into a 4 stack, they get interpreted in the box of these 4 functions, which makes the definitions of the functions seem way less precise than they could actually be.
At first: I like the concept of function genders and it improved my understanding of other people a lot. I also do think that seeing the genders of sensory and De as predictors for modalities is an interesting idea.
But what bothers me is that people are sorted in that system as black and white.
Everyone has masculine AND feminine sensory AND intuition in their 8 function stack. And the two strongest functions aren't necessarily masculine sensory and feminine intuition or feminine sensory and masculine intuition. They can also be masculine and feminine sensory, or masculine and feminine intuition. In those cases the modality is not clear.
I can't say anything against the De side though, because I think both Des in the 8 function stack always have the same gender.
The ignorance of the shadow stack also leads to a mess when it comes to animals: For example when someone has their 1st, 2nd, 5th and 6th function activated, they will observe 3 or 4 different animals in themselves, but all with the same letters. It will be rare that the animal stack by animal sorts fits accurately the animal stack by letters.
Often I see that someone has gotten an official typing and they talk about it as their "actual type". But sometimes it turns out that Shave have found that the coins don't fit together consistently and the type is pretty much a compromise. That would be ok if there would be the humility to say "That's just our typing and others can think otherwise". But that's not what happens. What happens is that other typing systems are laughed at for being retarded, people feel ashamed for having thought differently, and people with inconsistent typings are still used as prime examples for their types. That is not what I consider a scientific spirit and not sensitive for mental health. One could even say it's gaslighting.
Even though I respect the work of providing such a theory with a lot of new concepts, I have a lot to criticize about it. I would recommend anyone who gets in contact with OP to stay both open and skeptical. It's important to not make a cult out of theories and to listen to different experts to form your own worldview.