# Revolutionary Online MBTI Test - by personalityprophet.com



## afloatexplorer (Jun 18, 2016)

ENTP...eh

The first time I didn't pay attention to the rules and did all steps and got EENNTPP, then followed the steps and did 1,2,4,6, don't know if that means anything.


----------



## NipNip (Apr 16, 2015)

Shekinah said:


> Gave me EESNFPP :laughing:


Read the instructions please.


----------



## Shekinah (May 11, 2016)

NipNip said:


> Read the instructions please.


My bad! ESFP.


----------



## AlphaLeonis (Jun 13, 2014)

I think the alternatives are too telling of which functions one may be using, and this is because the test is mostly based on stereotyped, typical, regular behaviour, assuming people use their two primary functions only and at all times, with no conflict from the other functions acting in the background. In my opinion, it's easy to be biased when answering. 

It shows an understanding of the MBTI that is, in my opinion, too limited and not enough inclusive of all factors at hand. It's too simplistic from the way I see it. In my opinion, it is not considering sufficiently the processes of cognitive functions in themselves, and not putting enough accent on motives that could allwo for better differentiation of the functions. 



> Step 2, q1
> A) I find it useful to keep resaerching endlessly to get to the bottom of something and gain all information possible
> B) I want to see results to determine whether something is worth my time.


By asking a question this way, it implies automatically that it HAS TO BE one, or the other, and you're attaching one behaviour to a specific function, and the other to another function (or axis). It does not consider that, perhaps, all functions could potentially want to do this and that. 



> step 1, q1
> A) I have very little trouble explaining the decisions I made because they are based on logical reasoning
> B) I use personal values to determine what’s right and wrong


So here again, I can tell one is feeling, the other one is thinking. 
It doesn't take into account that, to some people, 'logic' can equal 'using a feeling function', and 'valuing something' can come from a thinking process. 
My ISFP girlfriend thinks she's being logical when she makes choices according to what she likes, personally, and things that catch her interest (Fi). She'd say she can explain her decision rationally. 'But if I like it, why shouldn't I do it ? It's not logical." 
I'm confident enough to say I use Ti, and I usually speak of my opinions as "Beliefs" (I believe this and that), because 'It's right' (Wrong). Perhaps the words here aren't appropriate ? Wrong, as in 'It doesn't make sense, it's not consistent', and right 'Okay, proceed, I see it holds together'. Still, I can talk of it in terms of right and wrong. So, the formulation doesn't guarantee the accuracy of the T/F dichotomy you're trying to establish here.



> Step 2,q3
> a) Once I set my goal, I'm determined to reach it, I rarely look back and zero in on my target
> b) I keep looking for, and allow new information to change my mind even though I had already set my mind


From the look of this question, for example, I can be pretty sure that A) Ni - Se B) Ne-Si (or Si-Ne). 
Both Ne and Ni can zero in on a target, and come to change their mind. _Yes_. 
Ne work with Si, that is conservative. So Ne may actually be tempted to jump from one thing to the other, if it excludes awareness of Si (Do one thing after the other and build some good foundation, step by step, like you'd build a cathedral in a given order, and not by building it randomly). 
Ni is conservative, but work with Se that seeks changes and new input, it wants to try everything and breaks boundaries or "visions" its Ni counterpart imagines. An Ni may actually take in information as they come (Se new events popping out) and allow change to adjust its vision again (therefore, even though it may have zero-ed in on a project, it can change its mind). 

I feel like this is a general trend of the MBTI tests although, believing that one uses the top two functions, imagining it is predictive of general, deterministic trends. I disagree with the beliefs underlying the making of this test, although, it's a good initiative.


----------



## Flaming Bassoon (Feb 15, 2013)

I got INFP. Cool test.


----------



## NipNip (Apr 16, 2015)

AlphaLeonis said:


> I think the alternatives are too telling of which functions one may be using, and this is because the test is mostly based on stereotyped, typical, regular behaviour, assuming people use their two primary functions only and at all times, with no conflict from the other functions acting in the background. In my opinion, it's easy to be biased when answering.
> 
> It shows an understanding of the MBTI that is, in my opinion, too limited and not enough inclusive of all factors at hand. It's too simplistic from the way I see it. In my opinion, it is not considering sufficiently the processes of cognitive functions in themselves, and not putting enough accent on motives that could allwo for better differentiation of the functions.
> 
> ...


Cool feedback thanks. I clearly have to look at the content again... Maybe something completely different because it will always be transparant and very bias inviting.

I myself believe that not a single test can provide a super solid answer. Analysising your own behavior and appyling all of your knowledge seems to be the only solution.


----------



## missrjs (Feb 23, 2014)

I did it and first time I got INFP, which I don't think is me at all. So I went back and re-did it, because I think I misinterpreted a few questions. Got ENTP which I definitely can buy. Not a test that's very revolutionary, but certainly interesting for people who don't know too much about cognitive functions already. If you're knowledgable about functions then it's fairly easy to guess what points to what.


----------



## Whysper (Jul 13, 2015)

I got INFP and INTP


----------



## throughtheroses (May 25, 2016)

Very interesting! I tested as an INFP, which is correct.


----------



## Mr.Tambourine Man (May 26, 2016)

It worked really well for me anyway! I couldn't see through most of the questions (even though I've done a fair amount of reading on jungian functions) and it typed me accurately (which about 4/5 tests fail to do).


----------



## NipNip (Apr 16, 2015)

missrjs said:


> Not a test that's very revolutionary, but certainly interesting for people who don't know too much about cognitive functions already. If you're knowledgable about functions then it's fairly easy to guess what points to what.


I agree, and doubt any test could possibly be revoluationary. What I'm trying to say it that mine is different than you standard super long dichotomoy based test. When you're that familiar with mbti and functions, you shouldn't need a test indeed.


----------



## coconut sharks (Apr 26, 2015)

@NipNip I tried picking the other options in the two questions I was unsure about and I got INFP, ENFP, INFJ or ENFJ.
I really doubt I could be INFJ or ENFJ.
I think the best way to improve this test is to add more questions, so that one different answer doesn't change your entire type.


----------



## NipNip (Apr 16, 2015)

ZakuroToshino said:


> @NipNip I tried picking the other options in the two questions I was unsure about and I got INFP, ENFP, INFJ or ENFJ.
> I really doubt I could be INFJ or ENFJ.
> I think the best way to improve this test is to add more questions, so that one different answer doesn't change your entire type.


Yes, more questions equals higher reliability. It's something to consider. 16personality test etc, they got 40 questions or so on average.


----------



## Silent Theory (Nov 1, 2014)

INFJ 

I enjoyed the test but the choices were a bit simplistic and the forced choice options were at times difficult to pick between, as I sometimes favored both.


----------



## Kallista (Jun 27, 2016)

I took it once and got INTJ which made me burst out laughing so I took it again and got ISFP so closer anyway.


----------



## Paradox07 (Dec 30, 2015)

I got INTP originally and I changed one answer that I knew would give me trouble.

A) I can get to the root of literally anything that comes to mind through deep analysis 
B) I enjoy organizing and structuring data

I selected 'A' originally, but it wasn't until I changed my answer to 'B' that I could answer the questions in step 5, which I typed as an INTJ after answering those questions. I'm not an ENTJ, so I don't relate with 'B' as much as I do 'A'.


----------



## voron (Jan 19, 2015)

A quick, simple and good test. Though, like @Amelia mentioned, you can still see which question leads to which type or function. But it's way better than most online test which have become way too clear for me.

Still got INTP but made me question my Te and Ti again. I may just be almost an INTJ but the functions really don't match as much as INTP's do, in general.


----------



## Bunny (Jul 11, 2015)

INTJ, most online MBTI tests score me as an INTJ so... I'm not sure how "revolutionary" this one is but oh well :shrugs:.


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

@NipNip, call me technologically challenged, but I've no idea what you meant by "drop down menu". Actually, I'm just entirely unfamiliar with excel. However, I thought there was potential behind your test questions. I can tell they're trying to get at the functions. It's not perfect now, but you've got something good here, I think.


----------



## Endologic (Feb 14, 2015)

*Awesome test! | So much to reply to :/*



Shekinah said:


> Gave me EESNFPP :laughing:


That's because you answered every step. Specifically:
Step 1: F. Step 2: Ti (P), which is rather curious. Step 3: Fi (P). Step 4: Se (S). Step 5: Ni (N). Step 6 and 7: E.
If you're an ESFP, and your tertiary function is Te, why did you pick Ti? It makes no sense.



afloatexplorer said:


> ENTP...eh
> 
> The first time I didn't pay attention to the rules and did all steps and got EENNTPP, then followed the steps and did 1,2,4,6, don't know if that means anything.


You first scored T. The first P comes from Ti, the second P and first N comes from Ne, NP. The second N is from Ni, which is rather curious. The ENTPs I know (+myself) are very detail-oriented. The two Es come from the two last steps which were the same.

[HR][/HR]


ziggy stardust x said:


> It got my type wrong. I am not an INFP and some of the questions I did not know how to answer.
> 
> For example, do you thrive on passion or objectives. I don't really understand this question.


(( Then NipNip answered: ))


NipNip said:


> Hm, it went wrong for you at step 1. And your tertiary Fi explains the rest. Thanks for the feedback. Maybe 5 questions are too small a sample to create a clear preference (might be 3-2 too many times, whereas 10 questions for each dichotomy will lead to more convincing preferences).
> 
> About that question; maybe it's a language issue, but the meaning of that question is that when you're really motivated to achieve something, what's your main driving force? Is it a sense of passion for that particular cause (e.g. "I love baseball, it will never bore me and I want to become the best I my region to represent the sport") or is it the willingness to achieve the objective (e.g. "I like baseball, it would be cool to make a living out of it because I'm not thrilled about my 9-to-5, so I will do my best to try and make it to the top"). Does your objective-oriented nature carry you towards your goals or is it devotion as a results of passion.


Yes, but no. Introverted judgement is the drive. I'm an INTP, hence I'm logic-driven. An ENTJ, which has Fi, though inferior, is driven by passion. ENTJs are known for being ambitious, and passion is their source for ambition and that's how the can stay consistent and keep making decisions based on if it brings them closer to their personal goal.
*NipNip*, I understand _exactly_ how you designed the test, and the point of Step 1 was to determine whether the person has Thinking or Feeling as one of their greater functions. The problem with the questions is that "passion" is already function-specific. A Te-dom would have answered "passion", despite that it was meant to represent F.



Lelu said:


> I got INFP, a type that is not possible for me.
> I assume in step 1, I answered too many feeler answers.
> 
> One problem I see with this test, are questions with two extremely relatable answers. Step 1 Question 1, for example, I both A) Explain decisions using logical consistency and B) Use personal values to determine right and wrong. A lot.
> If you're going with this approach, I suggest more questions. Even then, this just becomes more like a standard test.


I explained this error directly above. As I said before, the questions in Step 1 are type-specific, though they aren't meant to be. As you said, Step 1 was about finding out if T or F belonged to your greater functions.



ENTPness said:


> I got ENTP so it works, but I'm gonna be honest: I didn't see much "revolutionary" about this test. In fact, this is the most blatant case of fraudulent advertising I've seen since the film _The Neverending Story_.


Regardless of the joke, this test is actually indeed very revolutionary. Most tests just determine the 4 letters and that's it. This test figures out cognitive functions in a way to actually determine your type. Get this:

Step 1 serves to determine whether T or F belongs to your greater functions. If you pick T, you get sent to Step 2, which determines if the T function is Ti or Te. If you pick F, it sends you to Step 3, to determine if it's Fe or a Fi.
Then, if you picked introverted judgement (Ti or Fi), you get sent to Step 4, to determine if your other greater function is Se or Ne. The same logic applies to whether you pick extroverted judgement (Te or Fe): you are sent to Step 5, which determines if your other greater function is Si or Ni.
Once you did that, the test determines whether you're intro- or extroverted.

*NipNip, this test is a materpiece.*

[HR][/HR]


Mr.Tambourine Man said:


> It worked really well for me anyway! I couldn't see through most of the questions (even though I've done a fair amount of reading on jungian functions) and it typed me accurately (which about 4/5 tests fail to do).


Really? I thought they were quite easy to figure out. Maybe because you tried to see (Ni), when you had to think (Ti). Well, at least it works.


----------

