Ah cool I see you changed up the quiz a bit since the last time I played around with it, I got my type this time.
INTP: 181
INTJ: 163
INFJ: 156
INFP: 154
ISTJ: 135
I think the only feedback I have for you this time around is that your definition of Fe (or what I find to be Fe edged questions) seems to be skewed heavily towards enneagram type 3. I've met a lot of Fe users (moreso Fe aux) who really hate the concept of being recognized and are quite reserved in their style of affection (and ESxP's in particular who are not by any means).
Overall this seems to be coming along pretty well though, I look forward to seeing how this develops further.
You are talking about the question 3?
That option does score for Fe-doms although they score better on the affection one, and Fe aux doesnt score on that option, so I guess thats right. Now I dont remember why I decided that anymore
but should be based on Enneagram distribution aand some stuff I forgot.
However, your observation is interesting because even in Jung there is some "must be recognized" related to Fe (although thats more EXXJ, or Fe and Te).
Turi said:
There were multiple problems with this quiz, it's highly predictable, a lot of the questions are stolen from other quizzes and varied only slightly, there is a lot of mistakes with spelling and grammar, and some questions were asking the respondent to select from options that were not in opposition.
This means the test is easily gamed to produce whatever results people want, despite the creator claiming there are a number of hidden links at play behind the scenes - it's actually really generic, it's difficult to follow along with at times due to the spelling and grammar mistakes and having to select from options that are not in opposition creates an awkward feeling when taking the quiz.
I appreciate the effort, though I believe you could do better than this. I didn't like this quiz.
Well, that was though. But some of your perceptions are really different than others and a minority opinion, except on the grammar (Im not a native english speaker and I havent finished the english course).
If you found this test predictable, I dont see why you would not find other tests predictable as well. But perhaps you do actually have some good knowledge on the alternative stuff I used (Enneagram, Big 5, DISC I think, MOTIV, etc...), because lots of people couldnt really predict the results and couldnt really predict what some of the questions are for. The hidden links are for people who doesnt know these theories and how they relate to each other. And about these "lots of question stolen", well, first none of the theory behind the test is my own, second, there is some truth for five questions: I took five questions from Sakinorva test and did changed them a bit but I mentioned that some of them are inspired in Sakinorva (and mentioned Truity, where I did take the questions with words in the end of the test). However, as far as I remember all others are original, although I did took them based on descriptions and the original sources (such as MOTIV) does have a test on their own and might arrive at alike questions.
Im sorry you did feel uncomfortable expecting options to be in opposition, however that principle is considered very important in dichotomy, not in cognitive functions.
- - - Updated - - -
Finally posted the theory for Sum Typing, it isnt really that much complicated, really:
Sum Typing
A postive side, instead, is that it includes different types of questions, making it more various and accurate imo; the test didn't get my type right, true, but it's really close!
