# Problems with Keys2cognition



## Octavarium (Nov 27, 2012)

I have been using the keys2cognition site as a resource to help me figure out my type, but their function descriptions and test questions are not very helpful.

The instructions for the test tell the user to "indicate how often you do skilfully what the phrase describes" and that the test is designed to "help you discover what cognitive processes you use well." Ok, I'll bear that in mind as I go through the test. 

But what happens when I get to question 8, "feel strongly that something is good or bad." How do I know whether I skilfully feel strongly that something is good or bad? This is testing for Fi, but surely an inferior Fi type would be quite capable of having strong feelings about things, even though their feeling judgements would be less discerning than an IxFP. In fact, I would argue that if you're constantly putting things into "good" and "bad" mental boxes, you're not using your judgement skilfully. It's too black and white.

How about question 19, "freely enjoy doing what you want for your own personal happiness." Another Fi question I believe, and again, no explanation as to what constitutes doing that skilfully. I would guess it means doing it in moderation, I.E. allowing yourself to do things for yourself sometimes, without feeling guilty about it, but not becoming completely selfish. However these are the wild guesses of someone with no typology training.

The other one I have an issue with is 45, "push your mental limits to complete an array of innovative achievements." I'm not sure what function this is (Ni?), but are they seriously suggesting that certain types are more likely than others to have innovative achievements?

That leads me on to my issues with how the functions are described, both in the test and in the function descriptions. Compare their descriptions of Si and Ni. Ni is described with phrases like "pursue a greater level of awareness to transform who you are and how you think" and "gain a profound realization from a mystical state or sudden release of emotions," whereas Si is about "noticing that some food doesn't taste the same or is saltier than it usually is." No wonder everyone wants to be an intuitive.

There is also some confusion between perception and judgement. Their Te description talks about noticing that something is missing, but surely that is a perception... unless the judging functions also have a perception element? That's an aspect of the theory I haven't come across before... could anyone explain it?


----------



## Ellis Bell (Mar 16, 2012)

I personally have never liked how the define Se. I use it; but I would in no way ever describe myself as living in the moment or following physical impulses, blech. The test doesn't take individual definitions of certain phrases into account. I mean, what does "living in the moment" mean to you, or "feel strongly that something is good or bad?" What's good or bad to you? it's too black and white, as you mentioned. The test doesn't take personal experiences or circumstances into account.

What it also doesn't do is accurately describe the functions when they're unhealthy--technically, with Fe inferior, I should be able to relate to it in some way, but I always score very lowly on it, I'm guessing due to the way the questions are worded (I mean I do recognize social norms, but I would never say that I "readily communicate personally to all member in a group to feel unity." My experience differs in _how_ I experience Fe). I dream of a day when a test is created that measures the inferior, too. I just wouldn't use K2C for determining whole type, just the top couple of functions. Even then, it's often inaccurate. When I take it, for example, I scope high on Ti, Ni, Te, and Si--so the test thinks I'm an INTP or an INTJ! So let's throw ENTJ, ESTJ, and ISTJ in there, too! (let's see, which thinking types _haven't_ I mentioned?) Confusion!

Yes, I can see what you mean about everyone wanting to seem like an intuitive; all the cool kids are intuitives . But the thing most people don't take into account is that it's not about what you _want to be_ so much as what you _are right now_.


----------



## Pete The Lich (May 16, 2011)

Yeah it always likes to mark my Se high because ya know
I have eyes?
:|


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Octavarium said:


> I have been using the keys2cognition site as a resource to help me figure out my type, but their function descriptions and test questions are not very helpful.
> 
> The instructions for the test tell the user to "indicate how often you do skilfully what the phrase describes" and that the test is designed to "help you discover what cognitive processes you use well." Ok, I'll bear that in mind as I go through the test.
> 
> ...


I do think that Nardi's definitions of Ni is actually quite spot on. The question where it says something like "cause of action from a sudden release of emotions", it's not just Ni he's testing, it's with Se. 

In actuality, I didn't understand some of the Ni questions until I funnily enough had some Ni insights and I could see what he was really asking for. 

And while I suppose you're right about using a judgement function poorly if you only see things in black and white, that's a little how Fi dominance works when separated from a Pe function to bring in maturity and balance and make the Fi user realize there's more than their immediate judgement. 

Hard to explain really, but it's just one of those things when you know whether something is right or wrong, good or bad, beautiful or ugly. Not because I'm saying Fi must work with dichotomies, but you get the idea. If Fi evaluation says something is beautiful, then by definition everything not included in this definition of beautiful must be ugly, just like with Ti if something is deemed as logical, then everything else must be deemed illogical.

J dominance will furthermore be more black and white and less forgiving when it comes to definitions than P dominance. P types tend to be a bit more fluid than J types.


----------



## Octavarium (Nov 27, 2012)

kasthu said:


> I personally have never liked how the define Se. I use it; but I would in no way ever describe myself as living in the moment or following physical impulses, blech. The test doesn't take individual definitions of certain phrases into account. I mean, what does "living in the moment" mean to you, or "feel strongly that something is good or bad?" What's good or bad to you? it's too black and white, as you mentioned. The test doesn't take personal experiences or circumstances into account.
> 
> What it also doesn't do is accurately describe the functions when they're unhealthy--technically, with Fe inferior, I should be able to relate to it in some way, but I always score very lowly on it, I'm guessing due to the way the questions are worded (I mean I do recognize social norms, but I would never say that I "readily communicate personally to all member in a group to feel unity." My experience differs in _how_ I experience Fe). I dream of a day when a test is created that measures the inferior, too. I just wouldn't use K2C for determining whole type, just the top couple of functions. Even then, it's often inaccurate. When I take it, for example, I scope high on Ti, Ni, Te, and Si--so the test thinks I'm an INTP or an INTJ! So let's throw ENTJ, ESTJ, and ISTJ in there, too! (let's see, which thinking types _haven't_ I mentioned?) Confusion!
> 
> Yes, I can see what you mean about everyone wanting to seem like an intuitive; all the cool kids are intuitives . But the thing most people don't take into account is that it's not about what you _want to be_ so much as what you _are right now_.


Isn't the idea that you should score low on your inferior, because it's not something you're comfortable with?

You have a good point about personal experience. One of the ones I struggle to answer is 33, "lay out methods for others to complete tasks in time- and resource-efficient ways." That's not something I've ever been in a position to do so I don't know if I would be any good at it. I guess I could think about it in terms of whether I personally complete tasks in the most efficient way, but the question could be worded in such a way as to take that into account.

To be honest I don't blame people for wanting to be intuitives, as I said especially when comparing Ni and Si. I think Si is actually quite fascinating, but from reading that site you'd think SJs are the most boring people ever and NJs have supernatural powers. Si is so much more interesting than they're giving it credit for. I can't personally comment on Se because I'm pretty sure I don't use it. I'd assumed it was all those things like "living in the moment" that they describe, so you have an opportunity to educate me if you choose to take it up.

Oh, and I've just noticed another problematic question: 28, "feel attracted to the symbolic, archetypal or mysterious." That's a question about what you value despite the instructions clearly stating, "This is a serious questionnaire to help you discover what cognitive processes you use well, as opposed to surface behavior or what you value." Obviously the questionnaire isn't serious enough to have been proofread.


----------



## Octavarium (Nov 27, 2012)

LeaT said:


> I do think that Nardi's definitions of Ni is actually quite spot on. The question where it says something like "cause of action from a sudden release of emotions", it's not just Ni he's testing, it's with Se.
> 
> In actuality, I didn't understand some of the Ni questions until I funnily enough had some Ni insights and I could see what he was really asking for.
> 
> ...


This is how I see the thing about judgement. If you have one person who only sees things in black and white, thinking that everything is either absolutely good or absolutely bad, and then you have another person who recognises that something might be good in one context but not in another, then I'd say the second person has better judgement. It is, as you say, about maturity and balance, and while that does require having more than one function, it seems illogical that you should get a high score in a function because you're not using it in a balanced way.

About Ni: I find it hard to believe that there are people whose dominant way of taking in information is through mystical experiences. I'm not sure if this is what he's getting at, but I've had experiences like not understanding something and then having everything click into place and make sense, and very suddenly having a good idea. Those things can be quite emotional, but they're not mystical. I might still not be getting it. My criticism though is not that I don't understand it, but rather that Ni is described in a way that makes it seem more desirable than other functions.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Octavarium said:


> This is how I see the thing about judgement. If you have one person who only sees things in black and white, thinking that everything is either absolutely good or absolutely bad, and then you have another person who recognises that something might be good in one context but not in another, then I'd say the second person has better judgement. It is, as you say, about maturity and balance, and while that does require having more than one function, it seems illogical that you should get a high score in a function because you're not using it in a balanced way.
> 
> About Ni: I find it hard to believe that there are people whose dominant way of taking in information is through mystical experiences. I'm not sure if this is what he's getting at, but I've had experiences like not understanding something and then having everything click into place and make sense, and very suddenly having a good idea. Those things can be quite emotional, but they're not mystical. I might still not be getting it. My criticism though is not that I don't understand it, but rather that Ni is described in a way that makes it seem more desirable than other functions.


Well, then you don't quite understand and the question asks for basic use of Fi also, not advanced use. But at its core, Fi and Ti will always be black and white even if we don't think so, but the conclusions exclude each other.

Ok, are you a dominant Ni user or not? I think you will understand if your Ni is better developed than having random eureka moments which everyone does. Advanced use of Ni is very much having an insight which is mystical and archetypal. Even Jung describes it this way where he says that intuition is connected to the collective consciousness but sensing is not. 

Also, if you want to look at a negative picture of Si you should go to Jung. Si being an ability to recognize patterns is largely correct though and I don't think Nardi's test is wrong.

If people are _honest_ when taking the questionnaire, then I don't see how the descriptions are a problem. I actually think most of his descriptions are spot on and he's been working on them together with other Jungian analysts (Linda Berens?) so.


----------



## Octavarium (Nov 27, 2012)

LeaT said:


> Well, then you don't quite understand and the question asks for basic use of Fi also, not advanced use. But at its core, Fi and Ti will always be black and white even if we don't think so, but the conclusions exclude each other.
> 
> Ok, are you a dominant Ni user or not? I think you will understand if your Ni is better developed than having random eureka moments which everyone does. Advanced use of Ni is very much having an insight which is mystical and archetypal. Even Jung describes it this way where he says that intuition is connected to the collective consciousness but sensing is not.
> 
> ...


Oh, I'm no Ni dom. If I'm not getting it then fair enough, that's not why I'm complaining about it. There may well be people who can, say, predict the future with such accuracy that it seems supernatural. But wouldn't it be better to describe the process behind that rather than acting like they have some special supernatural gift that the rest of us normal people lack? Besides, if Ni is a person's dominant mode of information processing, then surely it wouldn't seem mystical to them, since they're so used to it (any INJs want to comment on that?)

Also, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but Fe as I understand it is just as much about evaluation as Fi is, so deciding that something is good or bad is just as likely to be Fe as Fi.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Octavarium said:


> Oh, I'm no Ni dom. If I'm not getting it then fair enough, that's not why I'm complaining about it. There may well be people who can, say, predict the future with such accuracy that it seems supernatural. But wouldn't it be better to describe the process behind that rather than acting like they have some special supernatural gift that the rest of us normal people lack? Besides, if Ni is a person's dominant mode of information processing, then surely it wouldn't seem mystical to them, since they're so used to it (any INJs want to comment on that?)


Well, Nardi claims that he's an INTJ so I think he is more than anything entitled to actually describe his own function correctly and I think part of the reason why the functions are worded the way they are is also to distinguish between advanced and basic use.


> Also, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but Fe as I understand it is just as much about evaluation as Fi is, so deciding that something is good or bad is just as likely to be Fe as Fi.


Then you missed the point I was making entirely, yes. I was saying that Ji functions are black and white in how they think and only good use of an Pe auxiliary will provide variety and balance to the Ji POV.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

Octavarium said:


> Oh, I'm no Ni dom. If I'm not getting it then fair enough, that's not why I'm complaining about it. There may well be people who can, say, predict the future with such accuracy that it seems supernatural. But wouldn't it be better to describe the process behind that rather than acting like they have some special supernatural gift that the rest of us normal people lack? Besides, if Ni is a person's dominant mode of information processing, then surely it wouldn't seem mystical to them, since they're so used to it (any INJs want to comment on that?)


Yes an Ni dom will and should get used to it, I myself don't compare it to some special supernatural gift. To me it is natural in its nature but for those who are not Ni dom ( or came to terms with it) can see it as supernatural in its essence. A lot of times when trying to understand it one has to go the supernatural route of understanding, even and especially Ni dom. Yes it can appear psychic well because in a way it is. But not in the way psychic is defined and understood by people who see it as some supernatural psychic unknown that is filled with stories and superstition. 
Ni to the core isn't about this "supernatural" idea but to try to explain in it can come off that way, which is why to me INTJ's who explain it comes off more efficient in doing so. Cause with INFJ's our Ni-Ti is a way that the user is more efficient in understanding. 
Ni isn't about telling the future, Ni in a way is like a really fast Ti in action coming from a source that can't be logically backed up all the times in an evident way. That is where the T side comes in play in expressing it in words and bringing it to a logical stand point. A lot of times it is a metaphorical statement that wraps it all up, sometimes we will help unwrap the box for the person.
All that to the side, Ni dom is no fun picnic to have as some people as taken it as from some of the way it is described.
To be honest Ni can be a nightmare sometimes and the road to maturing the Ni dom can be as well, depending on the user of course.


----------



## Spades (Aug 31, 2011)

I agree with your points. I think the problem lies in separating the 8 functions into separate components. They don't exist that way in the psyche; they work in pairs. A much more useful test would allow you to choose on a scale between say, Fi and Te, and Fe and Ti for example, and then Fe vs Te and Fi vs Ti. Such a test does sort of exist but I don't find it to be very accurate, though the idea is better. Both have me as Ni-dom.


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 25, 2012)

Octavarium said:


> Oh, I'm no Ni dom. If I'm not getting it then fair enough, that's not why I'm complaining about it. There may well be people who can, say, predict the future with such accuracy that it seems supernatural. But wouldn't it be better to describe the process behind that rather than acting like they have some special supernatural gift that the rest of us normal people lack? Besides, if Ni is a person's dominant mode of information processing, then surely it wouldn't seem mystical to them, since they're so used to it (any INJs want to comment on that?)


Thank you for the dose of common sense. Ni is _not_ mystical.

Ni works with Se in an axis. Se views the world as it is, without any personal preference attached - appeal to the common sensed reality. Ni takes this view and generates metaperspective on it - seeking the underlying dynamics of the Se data, filling in holes to connect it, all in a way that makes sense to the subjective or personal. Ni can get _nebulous_, yes, forming ideas about ideas about ideas, but I would not call it mystical; the kind of "realization" commonly claimed of Ni doms is so underlying that one simply loses track of one's foundational presumptions or even fails to see them as such.

I feel like I see reality, but I see through reality, a lot more than I actually see it.



> Also, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but Fe as I understand it is just as much about evaluation as Fi is, so deciding that something is good or bad is just as likely to be Fe as Fi.


You aren't wrong about that. The judging is just coming from two different points of view: Fi attached to the subjective, and Fe appealing to the common reality.


----------



## Octavarium (Nov 27, 2012)

LeaT said:


> Well, Nardi claims that he's an INTJ so I think he is more than anything entitled to actually describe his own function correctly and I think part of the reason why the functions are worded the way they are is also to distinguish between advanced and basic use.
> 
> Then you missed the point I was making entirely, yes. I was saying that Ji functions are black and white in how they think and only good use of an Pe auxiliary will provide variety and balance to the Ji POV.


Ok, here's an INFJ talking about how her experience of Ni is not mystical. INFJ or INFP? a closer look

This is the problem I have with the MBTI; the experts keep changing their opinions. One moment Ni is about mystical experiences, the next minute it isn't like that if you're an INxJ.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Octavarium said:


> I have been using the keys2cognition site as a resource to help me figure out my type, but their function descriptions and test questions are not very helpful. ...
> 
> That leads me on to my issues with how the functions are described, both in the test and in the function descriptions. Compare their descriptions of Si and Ni. Ni is described with phrases like "pursue a greater level of awareness to transform who you are and how you think" and "gain a profound realization from a mystical state or sudden release of emotions," whereas Si is about "noticing that some food doesn't taste the same or is saltier than it usually is." No wonder everyone wants to be an intuitive.


This post shows which functions correspond to which test items. As you'll see, some of the items are two-function items.

FYI, there's a longstanding 300-post thread at INTJforum devoted to people's results on that test, and the results that INTJs typically get (based on that thread, anyway) are significantly _inconsistent_ with the Ni-Te-Fi-Se pattern — not to mention inconsistent with just the simple expectation that Ni should be significantly favored over Ne, Ti and Te. If you're interested in a more detailed discussion of the discreptancies, and whether the problem is with the test or that cognitive functions model, you could take a look at two long posts I made on the subject — one and two — in that INTJforum thread.

On the "mystical Ni" issue: The mystical flavor of some N (and especially Ni) descriptions goes all the way back to Jung, who mostly considered the abstract/concrete component of N/S a component of I/E instead, and conceptualized an N preference primarily in terms of a special ability to perceive the contents of the unconscious and to envision, as Jung put it, "possibilities as to whence [something] came and whither it is going." Jung's Ni-dom portrait has a pretty strong _mystical visionary_ aspect that I don't think a typical INTJ is very likely to identify with.

Myers largely shifted abstract/concrete from I/E to N/S — and downplayed the unconscious stuff — with the result that the N/S items on the official MBTI are pretty much free of the mystical taint. But both Myers and Berens/Nardi talk about _both_ (1) the aspect of Ni that can potentially have visions of "what will be" (or at least could be) _in the future_, and (2) the aspect of Ni that uses the essential pattern-spotting nature of N to simply come to _present understandings_ (whether of the "aha!" variety or otherwise) of _the way things are_, or _the way things work_, or _what something means_, etc. And it's not uncommon for MBTI tests — both dichotomy tests and functions tests — to include one or more N questions (or Ni or Ne questions) that I suspect an NF or NP is more likely to choose the N response to than an NTJ. I'd say NTJs are the most _grounded_ of the N's in a number of ways, with the result that the N responses are sometimes too mystical/flaky/whatever to appeal to an NTJ. As one example, the original version of Keirsey's test asked if you find "visionaries" fascinating or annoying. Because (I assume) too many NTs (like me) were choosing the "annoying" response — because we associate the word "visionary" more with evidence-free New Agey mystical folks — Keirsey adjusted the wording, and the revised version asks if you find "visionaries _and theorists_" fascinating or annoying.

I'm an INTJ with what I consider strong T and J preferences, and these items from that Nardi test — 


Experience a premonition or foresee the distant future.
Gain a profound realization from a mystical state or sudden release of emotions.
Feel attracted to the symbolic, archetypal, or mysterious.

— have too much of a flaky flavor for me to relate to them very strongly. To identify with that kind of stuff, I think it helps to be an NF or NP (or both), and it probably also helps to be at least somewhat prone to believe in ESP and/or other supernatural stuff — as Jung was. Jung most often gets typed as an INTJ, INTP or INFJ, and the people who consider him an INFJ sometimes point to his mystical bent as one of the reasons they think he was an NF rather than an NT.

ADDED: I should probably clarify that I'm not meaning to suggest that I consider it all that likely that an INFJ will have a significant mystical streak (or identify strongly with those Nardi test items). But, because I think an INTJ is significantly _less_ likely to relate to stuff with a mystical flavor, I most often point to INTJs when I'm making the point that I don't really think it's appropriate to characterize IN_Js (or NJs) in those terms.


----------



## Octavarium (Nov 27, 2012)

@reckful, It doesn't make any sense to have a different definition of a dominant function depending on what the auxiliary is. I think it would be better to first define Ni independent of type, rather than saying that it is one thing in INFJs and something else entirely in INTJs. 

My first thought on reading your post was that some of those so-called INTJs are probably ISTJs who think they couldn't possibly be SJs because they don't identify with the traditional, rule-bound stereotype. But perhaps they're something else entirely. Going by Jung's description, I don't see why ISJs should be particularly grounded, so I think it's actually more likely that they're ETJs, since you seem to be describing people who are invested in their thinking.


----------



## snowbell (Apr 2, 2012)

Spades said:


> I agree with your points. I think the problem lies in separating the 8 functions into separate components. They don't exist that way in the psyche; they work in pairs. *A much more useful test would allow you to choose on a scale between say, Fi and Te, and Fe and Ti for example, and then Fe vs Te and Fi vs Ti. Such a test does sort of exist but I don't find it to be very accurate, though the idea is better.* Both have me as Ni-dom.


Do you have a link to this test? It'd be fun to try...


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Octavarium said:


> @reckful, It doesn't make any sense to have a different definition of a dominant function depending on what the auxiliary is. I think it would be better to first define Ni independent of type, rather than saying that it is one thing in INFJs and something else entirely in INTJs.


I think you must have misunderstood me. Part of my point was that it didn't make sense for Nardi (or anyone) to be working with a definition of Ni that doesn't fit INTJs well. I totally agree that, if you're going to try to make a "functions" model that works (and it's a model that says INTJs and INFJs are Ni-doms), you should leave anything that applies to INFJs but not INTJs (or vice versa) _out_ of the Ni definition.


----------



## Octavarium (Nov 27, 2012)

reckful said:


> I think you must have misunderstood me. Part of my point was that it didn't make sense for Nardi (or anyone) to be working with a definition of Ni that doesn't fit INTJs well. I totally agree that, if you're going to try to make a "functions" model that works (and it's a model that says INTJs and INFJs are Ni-doms), it needs to leave anything that applies to INFJs but not INTJs (or vice versa) _out_ of the Ni definition.


I'm looking at this in reverse. My reasoning is that we should first identify what Ni is, and then anyone who doesn't fit that is by definition not an INFJ or INTJ. You seem to be coming at it from the perspective of making the Ni definition fit with people who have self-typed as INTJ, so how are you deciding who qualifies as that type?


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Octavarium said:


> I'm looking at this in reverse. My reasoning is that we should first identify what Ni is, and then anyone who doesn't fit that is by definition not an INFJ or INTJ. You seem to be coming at it from the perspective of making the Ni definition fit with people who have self-typed as INTJ, so how are you deciding who qualifies as that type?


I'm using INTJ to refer to an introvert with an N preference, a T preference and a J preference — i.e., someone who, assuming they have reasonably well-defined preferences and interpret the items appropriately, will come out INTJ on the official MBTI. Nardi, Berens and most other functions-oriented MBTI theorists take the position that such a person (an MBTI INTJ) is an Ni-dom with a Te auxiliary — and so I'd say there's an inconsistency if there are aspects of their Ni descriptions that aren't particularly typical of those people.

Reasonable people can disagree about whether it's more consistent with Jung to expect an MBTI INTJ to be a Ti-dom rather than an Ni-dom but, for better or worse, Nardi and Berens both subscribe to Myers' view that MBTI INTJs and INFJs are the Ni-doms.


----------



## Octavarium (Nov 27, 2012)

reckful said:


> I'm using INTJ to refer to an introvert with an N preference, a T preference and a J preference — i.e., someone who, assuming they have reasonably well-defined preferences and interpret the items appropriately, will come out INTJ on the official MBTI. Nardi, Berens and most other functions-oriented MBTI theorists take the position that such a person (an MBTI INTJ) is an Ni-dom with a Te auxiliary — and so I'd say there's an inconsistency if there are aspects of their Ni descriptions that aren't particularly typical of those people.
> 
> Reasonable people can disagree about whether it's more consistent with Jung to expect an MBTI INTJ to be a Ti-dom rather than an Ni-dom but, for better or worse, Nardi and Berens both subscribe to Myers' view that MBTI INTJs and INFJs are the Ni-doms.


So you are suggesting making the theory fit the test? On the humanmetrics test I score INTJ, but I am quite obviously not one since I'm not an Ni user. To insist that I'm an INTJ because that's what a test told me and the theory should bend to me seems quite immature. I think your approach would only succeed in creating division and stereotypes, especially with a type like INTJ, which everyone wants to be since Keirsey called them "masterminds". Plus, even the most well written test is going to be inaccurate.


----------

