I think IDRlabs just wants to maintain the integrity of their system above all, they even mentioned themselves (the admins) they do not use socionics or enneagram but rather use Milton personality styles to explain things outside of their IDR type.

I do think IDRlabs approach to typology is pretty Jungian (in that they focus mostly on psychoanalysis over behaviors themselves). However, how they see the functions are very different from Jung's original conception. They mentioned that they disregard Jung's Si description (and even van der Hoop's) and just use Myer's description of Si in their system but even if we ignore that many of their Ni types are Jungian Ti types like Chomsky, Spinoza, Wittgenstein, Plato, Dante, Hegal, etc. Many of their Fi types are Jungian Introverted Irrational types (Jungina Si/Ni) like Kafka, van Gogh, David Lynch, etc. I don't think this is an error per se, just that IDRlabs have sort of created their own branch of typology using Jungian/MBTI concepts and I happen to be the few people to have a strong grasp of their typological system so I make the best use of it here in this site because in the index page it explicitly states "IDR" meaning that we are using IDRlabs system and not just general function system.

I think, I have something to say that I want to said about their website (IDRlabs) is that their do, I feel that their making some of mistake? (But, we are just a human beings. We're aren't that too perfect at all on doing things) And would change our thought in the future.

The thing that I want to criticized for is their membership followers I think they should be able to think hard, critically (maybe) about typing people/things accurately and correctly using these right typological systems, the cognitive function. I think they want to be in a system that they can trust and yes, I think it must be them (do I really understand this typological method, this person is must be an xxxx based on my research of his biographies/quotes, which Jungian theory, which axis, etc.)

I visited Personality Database briefly and I was shocked how terrible they were at typology in a general sense so I stayed away from it. Many within that community can't even agree with what a specific function or type is or even what is measured so it's just a big mess there :)

The dominant function is like breathing. The dominant function in our personality is so intrinsic to us, so deeply ingrained, that it's like breathing. We don't even have to think about it, we just do it naturally and almost effortlessly. It's the part of our personality that's most instinctive to us and the one we're most comfortable with.

The auxiliary function is like walking. While it might not be as effortless or as automatic as breathing, it's still something we do fairly naturally and without much conscious thought. In terms of personality, this function tends to support and balance out our dominant function.

The tertiary function is like jogging. It's something we can do and have some level of conscious access over, but it requires more conscious effort and isn't as natural or comfortable as breathing or walking. We might be good at it, but it's not our go-to skill or way of being. IDRlabs describes it as the puerile function where the individual naively overestimates their sophistication with their Tertiary function and it ends up like a child in a grown ups clothes, in other words can be clever and innovative but not entirely actualizing it's full and actual use. Because it jumps in and out of consciousness (semi-conscious), it's like an event where it has a definite beginning and end before beginning again only to be burnt out later, with the cycle repeating. However, one must not underestimate the charm and influence of the tertiary function.

The inferior function is like a hidden cramp. It's a part of us that we're often not aware of, and when it does show up, it can be painful or uncomfortable. It's the part of our personality that we repress and have no volitional control over. As von Franz has said about the inferior function, "You can never rule or educate it and make it act as you would like, but if you are very clever and are willing to give in a lot, then you may be able to arrange so that it does not throw you.” Despite it being an unpleasant area, it can also be a source of growth if we're willing to confront and work on it.

Whoa, this is a great progress. I think this is why I am discovering some of a new great length of discuss about the MBTI systems and not for confused by the whole MBTI community especially from that you know (Personality Database). All I know is I'm usually learning more about typology is by another website I remember it's named is Personality Cafe website or anything like for instance YouTube and now I discovered a new system again is it the IDRlabs and I know too in their website (Personality Database) that some of a (someone) who membership their website (IDRlabs) there following their methods of typing famous people.

Good, great so yeah I probably just want to say, enjoy what's on this website as much as you can.

Some may ask “why so types showcase instances of displaying their parallel dominant function (Ti/Fi, Te/Fe, Ne/Se, Ni/Si) even if it’s not in their stack in IDR?” To answer that the following is an exchange of a former IDRlabs follower and one of the admins:

Dx Req: "Is it me, or do people who have an Inferior function in a certain area start showing some traits from the Introverted/Extroverted version of that function? Because of my Inferior Te function, I find myself showing more of the Ti traits than Te traits such as favouring 'Justice' and 'Integrity' over 'Dominance' and 'Expediency'. And also, people with an Inferior Ni would cycle through several ideas like an Ne user would, and people with an Inferior Ne would have all the persistence with their ideas that you would see in an Ni user."

IDRlabs Admin: "That is a hard question to answer but it does seem that people’s dominant function can sometimes take on some of the modes of the parallel function Ti/Fi, Te/Fe, Ne/Se and so on. This is not described in the literature, just something we have informally noticed. Our best estimation is that since the dominant function is the most well-developed, it can mime its way through some of the same functional roles that are native to its domain (Ji / Je / Pi / Pe) since that is the person’s 'ground zero.' These elements are still foreign, though, and not genuine in the manner that they would be if the person was of the opposite type. A case in point would be how Fi users can sometimes apply a faux Ti standard with regards to third-world problems or oppressed peoples in general. But though IFPs can well don the garbs of Ti rhetoric, and even calculations, the driving force is still a one-way street beneath it all. A good example seems to us to be Portia’s defense speech in Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice. She appeals to 'justice' to get Antonio off. On the face of it, she is providing an argument for why it is just to let Antonio go, but at the heart of it her partiality and passion are driving the works."

Although ISTPs can sometimes concretely articulate their Ti ideas, Ti is usually harder to spot in ISTPs than in INTPs (although Ti in certain INTP individuals may not be readily apparent either). Coupled by the fact that one's type does not exhaust a individual's entire personality, this is also the result of Se influencing how they approach and validate their internal principles. ISTPs believe that the validity of their principles is tested and proven through real-life situations, thus their principles tend to be more pithy, practical, and untidy. They may think that their principles do not require extensive verbal explanation because they can be observed or proven in practical contexts. They typically prefer to demonstrate their principles rather than explaining them verbally (or even if the principle is not demonstrated through action, then they will at least see those principles as more "self-evident" compared to the INTP, all else being equal). To add on, the following text from IDRlabs very well illustrates how Ti in the ISTP works:

"With regard to the ISTP, however, it has often been remarked how most descriptions of Ti, and of what the two ITP types have in common, seem to pertain more to INTPs than ISTPs. In our estimation, this has been true of Jung, von Franz, and Myers. It has also been true of some of our own articles. This conflation of Ti as it appears with Ne, and Ti as it appears with Se, is a dearth in the scholarship on Jungian typology and has yet to be properly addressed. However, one way to unite the predictions of Jungian theory with the observations made post hoc is to contend that while ISTPs do think in terms of principles, their overriding principle is not academic, but the principle of reality itself. Paraphrasing the German fighter ace Hans-Ulrich Rudel, one might say that according to this principle, reality itself is the sole criterion of what is possible or impossible, good or bad. Concerning the ISTPs of this world, theirs is the practical mode of thinking in principles, and since reality is not at all as neat as the noetic conceptions of N types would have it appear, the principles-based thinking of ISTPs must therefore naturally be more adaptable and deviate more from pure ideation than in the case of the INTP."

To go slightly off topic here, I want to touch upon something regarding the ISTP that I think hasn't been talked about much. Now, this isn't a hard-and-fast rule but for many ISTPs, when they truly understand the undelying mechanics of their interest, it enables them a basis to be able to improvise, and if the individual ISTP is creative, then it enables them to innovate. These principles forms a foundation upon which they can fine-tune and build their own ideas, which may lead them to come up with new practical solutions pertaining to their interests. It's not just about knowing; it's about understanding and then applying that knowledge. To use an analogy (this shouldn't be taken too literally), it is like a musician who first learns the basic scales and chords, once they have a firm understanding of these mechanics, they can start to improvise and, if creative, create their unique sound.

One might ask me, "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 regard 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 that’s why I am here in this site 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 regard 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.