LL"s Atom Bomb Baby
- Jan 9, 2019
- MBTI Type
- Instinctual Variant
It's hard to believe but since the start of this thread in April of 2018, this test has been taken by 96,869 people (or at least that many times - some may have taken it more than once).
The test gave me my actual type. However I don't understand how the result is INTP and not ENTP or INFJ, considering the scores of each function
Ne=Ni (3) >Ti=Fe (1) >Te (0) >Si (-1) >Fi (-2) >Se (-5)
Sakinorva one had 17271 answers in a little bit more than a year, and I bet that 16personalities got more than 100k a year for sure.
I am with the ones that took more than once both tests.
I dont have many suggestions, partially because you havent posted much data about it and I think that this approach is good executed. And for my unluckiness, the test is down right now where I finally decided to post about it!
I had seem you mentioning having trouble differentiating Ne and Ni. To differentiate Ne and Ni, big 5 conscientiousness can be quite handy, since in my own search people with Ne, specially ENFP, tends to get low, while people with Ni tends to get it high. It is partially going to J/P realm indeed, but it works.
The sakinorva test had statistics for each question by type. I think you are already doing this, but just reinforcing: THe people who are quite sure of their type can be quite handy into tuning the test, so you can look if questions are properly working. For example, sakinorva first question probably was measuring Fi, and ISFP type was the 2nd lowest on agreemnet with that, and no FP type were in top 3/4 for agreement, meaning that the question failed its task.
But getting back at Ni and Ne. Conceptually speaking, Ne can also access the future, Te perhaps with plans, you need to pay attention if the future thing is really a Ni thing, since it can also be a Ne thing as well. I think using the word unconscious in one of the questions as Ni reference could work. Or take a look into Jungs original Ni and Ne descriptions can perhaps give some help:
Classics in the History of Psychology -- Jung (1921/1923) Chapter 10
And I would like to point out a thing that perhaps you are already doing, but if not consider it... Considering my data gathering (although it is more focused on Dario Nardi because it has many sites, I bet Nardi test has been taken more than a million times), the last cognitive functions are quite unreliable - looking at some results you can realize that it isnt unsual to the person to not take the right cognitive function on the back on the stack relative to type. For example, ISFP is supposed to have Te as the last function (even if some claim it is 4th), but instead some ISFP can gets Ti. The first cognitive functions, I mean the first 2 or 3 ones, are quite orderly from what I have been observing, while the middle to back is quite more chaotic and harder to understand. I recommend you to not use the last functions in the same degree of importance as the first functions, meaning that for the type formula(s) you use you should nerf/reduce the ammount of importance of the back of the stack. Perhaps even limiting the maximum negative number for the formula could help too, as a too negative last cognitive function can weight way too much and end up clouding the whole result.
And the last thing... You mentioned dichotomy, so I supposed there are hidden scores for dichotomies perhaps?
If there is, regardless of the cognitive function theory/method, this must be true:
- Fi and Fe must correlate significantly with feeling, Ni and Ne must correlate significantly with iNtuition, Te and Ti must correlate significantly with Thinking and and Se and Si must correlate significantly with Sensing. What "significantly" means is subjective, but I recommend preferable 0.7 or more and at least 0.5 .
And as a data request, would you mind posting the average cognitive function levels/numbers for each type (considering only those who are quite sure)? I gathered manually the average stacks for Nardi over several websites (I dont have any idea how to ask directly for that, except trying to do this: [MENTION=14444]AncientSpirits[/MENTION]), I requested Sakinorva as well. Im trying to make sense of that data rather than just saying test sucks =P.
One of these days, I want to run some analytics against the results database. But yes, I have found dichotomies to be more reliable than functions and the analysis works generally like what you said (e.g. Fi and Fe relate with feeling, etc.)
It would be great if you show them.
I have been posting in my own member blog the results that sakinorva shared and with previous results that I had gathered from Nardi and 16P/Truity tests. I am using this to satisfy my curiosity about which types are more extraverted or the most monk ones, which are more close to being ambivert in average, and other things such as the intuitive sensor (I think almost all 3 of them pointed to ISFP), these kinds of stuffs. But I had also made transformations to percentile, measured which types had the most of each cognitive function (like "what feeler has the most Ti?" on the test) and stuff as such.
In general, pairs forms in either interpretations of Jung, for example, for INTP type generally forms Ti-Ne or Ti-Ni as pair, and, in general, Fe is on the back, but the function we know as 'tertiary' almost never shows up in any tests, including yours that I had visually checked, including Sakinorva, including Dario Nardi, and perhaps even including others that I didnt paid attention to (for me the most relevant cognitive function tests lately are Sakinorva, Nardi and yours).
Analysis working as I said is a good sign, Sakinorva had some flaws (like Fi was not correlating with Feeling).
I haven't taken Sakinorva. Just did and came up with this:
Ne (extraverted intuition) 25.8
Ni (introverted intuition) 26
Se (extraverted sensing) 13
Si (introverted sensing) 21
Te (extraverted thinking) 32
Ti (introverted thinking) 28
Fe (extraverted feeling) 9
Fi (introverted feeling) 35
(grant) function type INTJ
myers function type INTJ
myers-briggs type INTJ
The type is correct but I'm having a hard time matching it up with the function results (why would Fi be so high???)
I'm a fan of the Truity test as well as their profiles
I just checked and now and 127,000 people have taken it, so it's averaging about 215 people a day.