Shaunward said:
Needed for whom, investors that were late to jump on board and want to see greater ROIs?
Oooo, inherent skepticism -- don't just accept things at face value. I'm proud of you, keep up the good work!
As far as needed, from a theory POV? Of course it is... it's pretty apparent that there's a wide range of behavior within each of the 16 types and some people do not identify with the basic type, so the Step 1 scoring/descriptions are of inadequate granularity.
I discovered this about a month ago. Here's how it came out:
I'm guessing you paid the full $90 for the test?
(I'm not aware of free online scoring yet.)
Was it worth it? it seems kinda stiff to me, although the expanded categorizations seem interesting. The price is one reason why I have not done it.
That is interesting, high. So, right out of the box, one has to wonder, where did these facets come from? Is there some model-theoretic justification for it? I don't quite see how.
Haven't looked at it a lot recently.
I'm actually going to guess the traits were categorized by some sort of theoretical brainstorming factor break-down rather than empirically derived tested clusters... but that's just a guess on my part.
It doesn't mean that the subcategories are not useful on their own, but they might not accurately map the breadth of a particular function (e.g., T, or S).