Challenges II
Introduction
As discussed earlier, the effectiveness of a personality framework depends heavily on the theory behind it. However, it is not just the theory that matters.
Different backgrounds shape different perspectives, and no two cultures view the world the same way. These variations influence not only how we act, but also how we interpret personality itself.
When we account for these differences, typology suddenly becomes far more complex, pushing us to look deeper into the nuances that make it both challenging and fascinating.
Inadequate Context
“Would you rather stay at home or go to a party?”
Questions like this show up all the time in online personality tests. But the answer isn’t actually that straightforward. The best response is: “It depends.” Because it is hard to answer this accurately without context. Given such ambiguity, most people will project their own meaning onto the question, which usually leads to inaccurate results.
And that is just the start. Self-assessments are also susceptible to another problem: individual biases. As humans, we are notoriously bad at judging ourselves. We often emphasize strengths we are proud of, while downplaying weaknesses we would rather not admit.
To make matters worse, when test questions severely lack context, people will simply apply their own. And most of the time, they will focus on their most recent attitudes. For example, if someone is trying to be more outgoing at the moment, they will most likely identify as an extravert even if it is not their natural tendency.
Or picture someone who’s had a rough day. In that state of mind, they might want to be left alone for the whole night. So, if asked to choose between going to a party or staying at home, even a social butterfly might choose the introverted choice—to stay at home.
This highlights two key issues. First, questions that lack context are nearly impossible to answer accurately. Second, self-perception is heavily shaped by personal bias. This is why people of the same type can take the same test and still get totally different results.
But despite their flaws, self-typing tests are still invaluable as they make typology accessible to everyone. But this also puts responsibility on test developers to improve the accuracy and reliability of their tests. If they provide questions with adequate context, naturally, people will provide clearer answers.
Some typology systems take a different approach. To reduce personal subjectivity, they offer one-to-one typing services, sometimes over phone or video. This, to us, is a huge step forward, as a skilled typologist can catch inconsistencies a test might miss. Still, it isn’t perfect, as even the best typologists can only work with what a client chooses to believe about themselves.
Consider Individual X. For most of his life, he was disorganized. But one day, after a stern warning from his boss, he decided to change. Through lots of effort, he became more organized. But no matter how much he tries, it does not come naturally to him.
Now imagine being his typologist. If he tells you that he is relentlessly organized at work, you might have no choice but to believe him. In the end, even with professional help, Individual X might still be mistyped as someone highly conscientious.
There is no easy way around this. But with plenty of communication and exploration from both sides, it can be managed. So, typologists must resist the urge to type someone too quickly, and instead, take the time to really understand the motivations behind their behavior.
The thing is, behavior isn’t shaped by motivation alone. It is also shaped by culture, customs, and beliefs. When we look across the world, these influences become clear. Germans are typically more direct than New Zealanders; the Japanese are usually more reserved than Americans; Latin Americans are often easy-going while Asians tend to be industrious. These may be broad generalizations, but they do reflect cultural patterns that can be mistaken for personality traits.
For instance, someone from a friendly, outgoing culture may look like an extraverted Feeler, while someone from a reserved, practical culture might seem like an introverted Thinker. Typologists who overlook these influences risk mistyping people from different nationalities.
To illustrate this further, if we are trying to figure out whether a Japanese woman is introverted or extraverted, it would be unwise to use an American woman as reference. By American standards, she will almost always appear introverted. A better approach is to compare her with people from her own culture, where the subtle differences in personality become easier to spot.
All of this makes one thing clear: a person’s context is everything in typology. This involves the client’s self-understanding, input from their close friends, and the perspective of an unbiased observer. Each piece adds clarity. Clients know their own motivations best, close friends can point out blind spots, and an unbiased observer can catch details that were missed.
All in all, typology is a complex process. It demands patience and careful exploration to uncover the parts of ourselves we don’t always see clearly. It is tricky to do alone, which is why we encourage you to seek help from others, such as your friends and a professional typologist, to better triangulate your true personality type.
Unclear Preferences
Meet Takeshi.
About a week ago, he took a personality test and got ESFJ. At first, it seemed to fit. But after digging deeper, something felt off. Curious, he tried another test the very next day. This time, he got ESTJ instead. So what happened? Did his type change overnight? Not exactly.
Even before the test, Takeshi’s personality was already tricky to pin down. At work, he often stresses that the best decision isn’t just what is logical, but what feels right for everyone. Yet during meetings, he fires out reasons like a machine gun, tearing down points that don’t make sense while building up ones that do.
It is the same story outside of work. One moment he seems like a Feeler, the next like a Thinker. So which one does he really prefer? Thinking, Feeling, or both?
To make sense of this, let’s try a simple thought experiment.
Imagine two bowls in front of you: one filled with ice cream, the other with salad. If you are like most people, you would probably prefer the bowl of ice cream, right?
But what if you were on a diet, had some health issues, or were trying to lose a few pounds? Suddenly, you would prefer salad. In other words, the word “preference” is not that straightforward, especially in the context of personality. To clear things up, it helps to revisit the roots of the word personality.
The term originates from the Old French personnalité, meaning “a distinctive, essential character of a conscious being.” And what forms this “essential character”? The innate preferences we are born with.
So, in the food example, your innate preference is ice cream, because humans are wired to love sugar. But when you pick salad, that is a conscious preference, shaped by mood, environment, or in this case, deliberate thought.
Now, let’s return to Takeshi. Knowing this, how can we determine his real preference? The missing piece lies in his past.
Earlier in life, Takeshi lived for effectiveness. Feelings and values? To him, they were pointless distractions. This single-minded approach brought him enormous success in his career, but it also created a rift between him and his coworkers. They admired his competence but felt disconnected from him as a person, since he seemed to care more about results than people.
The truth hit him during a performance review, where he received a lot of negative feedback on this very blind spot. Shocked, Takeshi began to reflect on his priorities. For the first time, he realized he needed to connect with emotions, both his own and others. Looking inward, he also uncovered deeply-held values he had long neglected and slowly began to integrate them into his life.
Today, if you asked him whether he prefers logic or values, he would confidently say values. But deep down, his wiring has not changed. His innate preference is still Thinking. Feeling, by contrast, is a conscious preference he chose to develop.
And just like Takeshi, many of us mix up our innate and conscious preferences for personality without realizing it. That is why the NXT framework draws a clear line between them with the concept of Heroes and Shadows.
Our Heroes are the cognitive processes we naturally prefer. They come so naturally to us, we hardly notice them running our lives 24/7. They are called Heroes because of how they make us feel. When we tap into them, we enter what’s known as the Hero state, where we feel calm, confident, and capable—just like a hero.
Given how powerful our Heroes are, you might think that we would value them above all else. But strangely enough, we usually don’t. Take Takeshi, for example. His Hero function is Thinking, and though others admire his ability to solve problems and get things done, he does not see it as anything special. Why is that?
Just think of Superman. To the world, his powers are extraordinary. He can lift entire cities with one arm, fly faster than the speed of light, blow buildings over with a single breath, and the list goes on and on.
Yet, he is not amazed by his own abilities. Not even a bit. After all, he’s had them his whole life, and uses them almost every day. That is how we feel about our Heroes. They might seem incredible to others, but to us, they feel unremarkably ordinary.
Still, we rely on them all the time. They are the cognitive processes we fall back on when we are on autopilot and hence, they exist at the front and center of our conscious mind. However, when we focus only on our Heroes, we forget about the Shadows lurking in the dark.
Our Shadows are the opposite of our Heroes. These are the parts of ourselves that do not come easily to us, so they fall into our blind spots. For Takeshi, his Shadow function is Feeling, which explains why he ignored it for so long.
By default, most people avoid their Shadows. They are uncomfortable, demanding, and unfamiliar. But as we mature, we begin to see how important they truly are. Shadows balance out our Heroes. Without them, life tips too far in one direction, and we risk losing ourselves, just as Takeshi once did.
But when we embrace our Shadows like Takeshi, we unlock new levels of growth and fulfillment. It may feel scary at first, but with kindness, curiosity, and a little self-compassion, the fear begins to fade. Over time, we may even grow to prefer our Shadows, as they make us feel more capable. Still, they never come naturally, and so will always be a conscious preference.
This distinction matters. If we confuse our innate and conscious preferences, we will mistype ourselves, misunderstand who we are, and choose growth paths that don’t truly fit us.
Only when we recognize both our Heroes and Shadows, can we see ourselves clearly on the multidimensional grid of personality.
Complex Variations
The human race is wildly diverse. With billions of people on this planet, each carrying their own unique quirks, habits, and traits, it is no surprise that when a personality framework tries to group everyone into a handful of types, it can’t help but feel like an oversimplification.
That’s the main criticism leveled at every major framework out there, whether it’s MBTI, Keirsey, Socionics… you name it. The complaint is usually the same: “People are too complex to fit into these boxes.”
But are those criticisms really fair?
To answer that, we must first unpack what “oversimplified” means. Take the classic introvert-extravert dichotomy. In most systems, introverts are quiet and reserved, while extraverts are talkative and social. It sounds straightforward, until you meet someone who barely says a word in small talk, yet can go on for hours about their favorite topic. So which one are they: introvert or extravert?
The truth is, nobody fits perfectly into either end of the spectrum. Most of us fall somewhere in between as ambiverts, expressing ourselves differently according to context. And this isn’t unique to introversion and extraversion, every trait works this way. People regularly display a mix of behaviors that seem to contradict their supposed type.
And that’s what we discovered: it’s not about what people do, it’s about why they do it. When frameworks focus too much on outward behavior, they end up feeling oversimplified. It's like judging a book by its cover instead of reading the story inside.
So instead of categorizing someone as an extravert simply because they talk a lot, in NXT, we ask: why are they talkative? Are they driven by a need to connect with others? A desire to feel significant? A passion for sharing ideas? As you can see, the same behavior can stem from radically different motives.
It works the other way too. Two people may share the same motivation but look completely different on the outside. That’s because personality expression is shaped by culture, gender roles, age, and more.
For example, an introvert from Brazil might be more outgoing than an introvert from Japan, not because they have different inner drives, but because they grew up in different cultures. Similarly, an older Thinker may be more connected to their emotions than a younger one, not because their type has changed, but because they’ve developed that part of themselves through time and experience.
In other words, surface-level traits alone aren’t reliable markers of personality. Instead, NXT maps it around people’s cognitive processes, which allows us to capture the complexity of human nature through 32 archetypes without reducing people to caricatures.
And the best part? NXT is made to be flexible. If you want simplicity, you can group the 32 archetypes into 4 big clusters. But if you want precision, you can expand the 32 archetypes into 512 distinct types (exclusive of gender, cultural, and socioeconomic differences). This layered design makes NXT both accessible and in-depth.
However you choose to use it, the NXT framework will help you navigate the full spectrum of human personality, capturing the fundamental variations that make each of us unique.
People Problems
Sometimes, what drives people away from typology isn’t the frameworks themselves, but the people who use them.
In many online typology communities, you’ll find passionate members debating the accuracy of different personality systems. When done healthily, this kind of discussion encourages curiosity and critical thinking. But all too often, what should be a thoughtful exchange descends into something more like a verbal fistfight.
Such an atmosphere is unwelcoming at best, toxic at worst. Unsurprisingly, newcomers who join these spaces hoping to learn often leave discouraged. Instead of finding answers, they get bashed by members who are a little too “enthusiastic”.
To be clear, the pursuit of accuracy isn’t the issue. The issue is that for some, accuracy isn’t the goal—winning the argument is. When that happens, we end up with endless back-and-forths where no one wants to compromise. And why would they? In their eyes, they are absolutely right… at least by their own subjective criteria.
Over time, this fractures the typology community into factions, some fiercely opposed to one another.
And that is precisely our concern. Like every framework out there, NXT comes with its own terms, concepts, and definitions that differ from existing theories. By joining the conversation, it is only a matter of time before we face criticism from diehard fans who are devoted to their faction’s theories.
Now, criticism in itself, is not a problem. NXT is a living framework designed to evolve, so we welcome feedback of any kind. But when they come from the wrong intentions, it leaves no room for dialogue. And that’s a shame, because despite our differences, we all share the same goal: to move typology forward.
That’s why a part of our internal policies is to not diminish other theories. Every framework has its merits. Even if we disagree, there’s always something to learn from each other. More than that, we make a conscious effort to not throw cheap jokes and insults at other systems—it just doesn’t sit right with us.
At the end of the day, we don’t believe in blowing out someone else’s candles just to make ours shine brighter. Doing so only makes the room darker for everyone. And what’s the point in that?
The Way Forward
As we lay out the challenges facing typology, we must also remember that we stand on the shoulders of giants. NXT exists only because of the groundwork laid by countless systems before us. Without their contributions, we would have nothing to build on. For that reason, we are forever grateful to everyone who has shaped the field of typology, whether their role was big or small.
Now, what we’ve shared so far is all the major problems we have observed in the field of typology. But to be clear, it is not an attack on other systems. We’re just trying to raise awareness, and if highlighting these issues helps move typology forward even by just a little, then this effort has served its purpose.
It also goes without saying that every personality system we’ve encountered has its own value. Each one brings its own unique perspective to the table, and together they’ve made the field richer and more diverse. At the same time, we understand that no system is perfect, especially when it comes to the intricate study of the human mind—ours included.
That’s why we refuse to be lulled into a false sense of confidence. If we grow complacent, we risk becoming blind to the faults in NXT, leaving it stagnant. After all, typology, like science itself, only moves forward when we’re willing to question what we know.
The evolution of the atomic model reminds us of this. For centuries, the atom was considered the smallest unit of matter. But this fact was eventually overturned by the discovery of protons, neutrons, and electrons, which was then challenged by quantum theory. Perhaps in a few more years, we will discover another model that will redefine our understanding yet again.
This teaches us an invaluable lesson: we can never be too sure about anything, as our knowledge is constantly evolving with time.
As astrophysicist Neil Degrasse Tyson put it: “One of the great challenges in the world is knowing enough about a subject, to think you’re right; but not enough about the subject, to know you’re wrong.”
That’s why we see NXT not as a finished product, but as a framework designed to evolve. We look forward to working with a global community to gather new data, exchange insights, and uncover patterns that will deepen our understanding of personality beyond what we know today.
To put it simply, the future demands growth. Just as humanity adapts with each new era, typology too must expand and transform. For all the progress we’ve made, we likely still hold only a fraction of the truth.
That is why we remain curious and excited about the discoveries yet to come. With science and knowledge advancing faster than ever before, who knows what the future holds for typology? Only time will tell.
But for now, we present to you the NXT personality framework.
Read next part → NXT Personality Framework