I'm.. not entirely sure how to make this any clearer. I'll try my best. If you're going to pay attention to anything I say, pay attention to this:
You have told us to evaluate "whether we would call the result accurate or not," and why we would or would not.
This test gave me fairly accurate results, but I am answering why they may have deviated to the degree that they have. I am stating that it would
give me a more accurate result if it threw away any questions that had to do with j/p dichotomy and if it refined its ethics questions to be more clear and less "humanly universal." It may skew others' results if these changes were made, but that's not what you have asked me to consider.
If you don't understand what I'm trying to say in that paragraph, then this discussion is absolutely pointless.
The rest of this post is just gravy, and I'm pretty much done discussing the gravy. It's delving into the sort of detail that we haven't been asked for, that I just plain don't have answers to.
As it stands, I don't know exactly how to refine the test so that it produces more accurate results for everybody in the world.
That said, I don't know how to improve the test. Thankfully, the burden isn't on me to propose
anything to improve the test.
Well yes. As ethical IME-s have to do with a general interest in people, understanding relationships, sizing up new people and so on
Yes, they do. However, they also take on responsibilities for valuing subjective worth, notions of fairness, and other elements that are less universal.
How would you propose one asks about the usage of ethical IME-s without addressing those things?
Verbatim from what I said above: I don't know how to improve the test. Thankfully, the burden isn't on me to propose
anything to improve the test.
That might be the case for you, on your specific test result, but it doesn't have to be that way for everybody.
I didn't say that it had to be that way for everyone, nor that it was.
I'm talking about
my results, and
my opinion on them, and
my opinion on why they might have come out as they have, which is exactly what you asked us to do. So the fact that this is the case for me on my specific result is the only aspect of this test that I've been asked to be concerned with, and that's the standpoint I've been coming from.
And why would it point to an overemphasis on the dichotomies?
Because a j/p switch is a very likely explanation for those types being so close together in the list. An ENFj's strong and valued functions are a ENFp's strong and ignored functions.
The dichotomies it does take into account do not exist in MBTI. Stuff like merry-serious, strategist-tactician and so on.
MBTI's J/P and Socionics' j/p are analogous. Not exactly the same, but analogous. That is the same dichotomy that I am taking issue with,
insofar as it could have had the capacity to affect my results.