# A brand-new cognitive function test



## LonelySpaceEmperor

INxx is an almost definite for me; as of right now I am considering INxP.

Ne (extraverted intuition)	37
Ni (introverted intuition)	42.4
Se (extraverted sensing)	15.7
Si (introverted sensing)	13.5
Te (extraverted thinking)	36
Ti (introverted thinking)	38
Fe (extraverted feeling)	27
Fi (introverted feeling)	33

grant-brownsword function type	INTJ
axis-based function type	INTJ
most likely myers-briggs type	INTP

clear I preference
clear N preference
clear T preference
moderate P preference


* *
















This correlates with what I usually score on cognitive functions tests: Ni/Ne is usually highest with Ni scoring a bit more than Ne, Ti then follows up, sometimes higher than Ne, close to that of Ni, than Fi which usually scores somewhat high for me as well; the rest is low.


----------



## PiT

Well, that result was not terribly surprising, other than Ti scoring as highly as it did.


----------



## Saturniid

Ne (extraverted intuition)	41
Ni (introverted intuition)	40.1
Se (extraverted sensing)	14
Si (introverted sensing) 27
Te (extraverted thinking)	25
Ti (introverted thinking)	40
Fe (extraverted feeling)	18
Fi (introverted feeling)	28

grant-brownsword function type	INTP
axis-based function type INTP
most likely myers-briggs type INTP


clear I preference
clear N preference
clear T preference
clear P preference










Consistent with what I usually score anywhere else, though some people have had doubts and arguments about whether I use Ni or Ne, since strong arguments have been posed for both.


----------



## The Dude

_Ne (extraverted intuition)	19
Ni (introverted intuition)	19.7
Se (extraverted sensing)	26
Si (introverted sensing)	17.8
Te (extraverted thinking)	19
Ti (introverted thinking)	21
Fe (extraverted feeling)	19
Fi (introverted feeling)	20

grant-brownsword function type	ESTP
axis-based function type	ESTP
most likely myers-briggs type	ENTP

e	n	f	p
58	77.9	35.4	73.9
39.9	6.2	55.9	19.4
i	s	t	j

slight E preference
strong N preference
moderate T preference
strong P preference_

Boosh...nice test.


----------



## Ocean Helm

Grant-Brownsword - INTJ
Axis-based - INFJ
Myers-Briggs - INTP


----------



## vemurea

I have updated my axis-based scoring method to now weigh itself on the calculated dominant function within the two axes rather than total up your N/S and I/E function scores and decide based on that. I feel like doing so may be more in line with how the "axis-based" way of typing people is generally used in the typology world, since the method in practice doesn't really revolve around I/E & N/S so much as it does around a dom function. 

And I'm elated at all the positive feedback! I super appreciate all the responses I'm getting… it may never end up being perfect but I've been able to patch it up little by little with your help. Thank you!!!


----------



## Ocean Helm

Ebola said:


> * *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no


yes


----------



## Saira

spaceynyc said:


> wish I was this clear with my preferences....


Oh, spacey, do you believe it took me _years _to accept being an INTP? I always got it on tests, but it's only recently that I managed to make sense of it and stop questioning myself. I was evading INTP like crazy, considering literally every other type. So no worries if you can't box yourself in, I hope you won't become as crazily obsessed to confidently solve the puzzle like I was. It's just a simplified categorization. I wish I spent all that time on maturing and dealing with real problems in my life, rather than figuring out this or that system. But I guess that comes with being an INTP - we spend loads of time and mental energy on useless shit.


----------



## GrowLegends

Ne (extraverted intuition)25.3
Ni (introverted intuition)27.6
Se (extraverted sensing)20
Si (introverted sensing)17.8
Te (extraverted thinking)16
Ti (introverted thinking)29
Fe (extraverted feeling)30
Fi (introverted feeling)24

grant-brownsword function typeINFJ
axis-based function typeENFJ
most likely myers-briggs typeINFP

enfp36.299.181.664.667.1-3.819.732.4istj
moderate I preference
clear N preference
clear F preference
moderate P preference

What does this mean?


----------



## lifeinterminals

I filled this inventory in again, and wound up with similar results following OP's revisions.


----------



## The Exception




----------



## mushr00m

So does this mean all 8 functional attitudes are conscious, not 4 conscious and 4 unconscious.


----------



## Jack999

Ne (extraverted intuition)	42.3
Ni (introverted intuition)	32.3
Se (extraverted sensing)	15.3
Si (introverted sensing)	28.5
Te (extraverted thinking)	24
Ti (introverted thinking)	27
Fe (extraverted feeling)	18
Fi (introverted feeling)	26

grant-brownsword function type	ENFP
axis-based function type	ENFP
most likely myers-briggs type	INTP

e n f p
22 102.9 45.5 68
83.9 10.4	52.3	39.3
i	s t j

strong I preference
clear N preference
unclear T preference
slight P preference

...interesting.


----------



## Simpson17866

Ne (44.3) – Ti (41) – Ni (37.7) – Fi (37) – Fe (24) – Te (23) – Si (19.7) – Se (10)

My grant-brownsword and axis-based functions types are both ENTP, and my MyersBriggs type is INTP


Clear I preference: -0/118 E/I
Clear N preference: -34.8/142.8 S/N
Slight T preference: 44.1/60.2 F/T
Clear P preference: 2.4/102.3 J/P


----------



## Athenah




----------



## The red spirit

My type is mostly unknown to me myself. Test wasn't too bad, but not really too different from others. I think it's okay as an alternative to other available tests.


----------



## Handsome Dyke

Both function types were INTP and my most likely MB type was ISTJ, which is what I've been scoring on other online MB tests lately.

It's interesting to see that the function type that takes maturity and type development into account gives me INTP because I've hypothesized that I score ISTJ nowadays because those other tests _don't_take this into account.


----------



## lifeinterminals

Simpson17866 said:


> Ne (44.3) – Ti (41) – Ni (37.7) – Fi (37) – Fe (24) – Te (23) – Si (19.7) – Se (10)
> 
> My grant-brownsword and axis-based functions types are both ENTP, and my MyersBriggs type is INTP
> 
> 
> Clear I preference: -0/118 E/I
> Clear N preference: -34.8/142.8 S/N
> Slight T preference: 44.1/60.2 F/T
> Clear P preference: 2.4/102.3 J/P


Same, fam.

--

Ne - 43
Ni - 34.4
Se - 22
Si - 19.5
Te - 30
Ti - 41
Fe - 19
Fi - 19

--

Grant-Brownsword - ENTP
Axis-Based - ENTP
MBTI - INTP

Strong I preference: 88.5/23.7 I/E
Clear N preference: 144.7/-33.4 N/S
Clear T preference: 84.7/16.9 T/F
Clear P preference: 114.8/-9.3 P/J


----------



## danthemanklein

Fi (38)
Ne (30.3)
Si (27)
Fe (21)
Ni (20.7)
Ti (18)
Te (17)
Se (12)

Grant-Brownsword function type - INFP
Axis-Based function type - INFP
Most likely Myers-Briggs type - INFP

Strong I preference: 80.2/22.9
Unclear N preference: 61.9/48.3
Strong F preference: 73.6/32.8
Undifferentiated (possibly Unclear P preference): 55.9/46.2

Interesting! Really enjoyed taking this test, by the way.


----------



## mp2

Ne (extraverted intuition)	44
Ni (introverted intuition)	34.5
Se (extraverted sensing)	18
Si (introverted sensing)	16
Te (extraverted thinking)	24
Ti (introverted thinking)	30
Fe (extraverted feeling)	24
Fi (introverted feeling)	27


grant-brownsword function type	ENTP
axis-based function type	ENTP
most likely myers-briggs type	INFP

e	n	f	p
33.3	134.6	71	112.8
79.3	-34	31.5	-6.5
i	s	t	j

moderate I preference
clear N preference
strong F preference
clear P preference

Interesting test!


----------



## mistakenforstranger

Ne (extraverted intuition) 27.7
Ni (introverted intuition) 31.6
Se (extraverted sensing) 11
Si (introverted sensing) 13
Te (extraverted thinking) 23
Ti (introverted thinking) 33
Fe (extraverted feeling) 27
Fi (introverted feeling) 24

Ti > Ni > Ne > Fe > Fi > Te > Si > Se

grant-brownsword function type ENTP
axis-based function type ISTP
most likely myers-briggs type INFP

:shocked: I seriously do not know what to do with those results. :laughing:


----------



## Turi

What exactly are the functions definitions you work with?

I noticed in the Q&A, you've put a 'why are your functions definitions so terrible' (paraphrased) question - yet, I don't actually see the functions defined anywhere on your site.


----------



## vemurea

Turi said:


> What exactly are the functions definitions you work with?
> 
> I noticed in the Q&A, you've put a 'why are your functions definitions so terrible' (paraphrased) question - yet, I don't actually see the functions defined anywhere on your site.


It's more of an implied thing based on what the questions ask for rather than actual concrete function definitions I've defined elsewhere. The results you receive are after all purely based on the questions that you answer, so you may as well define function X as "what agreeing to all questions that calculate for X would entail." Maybe I could have said "questions that test for the functions" but that somewhat implies that the issue may have to do with the wording of the questions rather than what they test for.


----------



## Jaune

Ti > Se > Ne > Fi > Ni > Si > Te > Fe

grant-brownsword function type: ISTP
axis-based function type: ESFP
most likely myers-briggs type: INTP

gg


----------



## Eset

I see that your algorithms have changed.










Issue that I have spotted; 2 ESFP, 0 ESTJ


----------



## SilentScream

There might be a flaw in how it's scoring Intuition vs Sensing. 

Then again, I always test high on intuition but when it comes to the actual descriptions, especially the description of the Se/Ni relationship, I'm clearly that as opposed to Ne/Si.


----------



## Chatshire




----------



## vemurea

narcissistic said:


> I see that your algorithms have changed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issue that I have spotted; 2 ESFP, 0 ESTJ


good catch! I'll fix that rn


----------



## vemurea

Reap said:


> There might be a flaw in how it's scoring Intuition vs Sensing.
> 
> Then again, I always test high on intuition but when it comes to the actual descriptions, especially the description of the Se/Ni relationship, I'm clearly that as opposed to Ne/Si.


If you score high on actual "intuition" on an MBTI test (like form M or Q), then you will probably score high intuition in the "most likely Myers-Briggs type" section. Whether you score higher on Se + Ni than Ne + Si wouldn't matter so long as you're N > S based on all of the letter assignments to the questions. I don't have any questions here that gauge for "Se/Ni" or "Ne/Si" as an axis since that would constitute consistency between being "Se/Ni" and "Se + Ni according to the test" in a way that I don't believe exists. 

The problem with my method as-is would be that measuring axes only along their separate definitions isn't really the same as how the axes are perceived to be, which I would imagine should be essential to scoring based on axes. But maybe it is less a flaw than it is "corrective" of a stigma where a definition of Se added with a definition of Ni isn't equal to a definition of "Se/Ni"? I don't know if it should be inherently wrong to add up two scores of two functions on an axis to determine the strength of an axis.


----------



## SilentScream

No. I was talking about dominant/inferior. Not dominant/aux lol


----------



## Bitterself




----------



## Bitterself

Double


----------



## JennyJukes




----------



## Catwalk

_Ne (extraverted intuition)	24
Ni (introverted intuition)	25
Se (extraverted sensing)	20
Si (introverted sensing)	18
Te (extraverted thinking)	26
Ti (introverted thinking)	28
Fe (extraverted feeling)	15
Fi (introverted feeling)	22_

Grant-brownsword function type	INTP

Axis-based function type	ENTJ

Most likely myers-briggs type	INTP

Unclear I preference | Slight N preference | Clear T preference | Undifferentiated


(*E* - 43.9) (*I *- 60.4) (*N* - 61.8) (*S* - 43.2) (*F* - 6.1) (*T* - 91.2) (*P* - 50.2) (*J *- 49.9)


----------



## BenevolentBitterBleeding

What a bunch of hogwash! I'm clearly a St.


----------



## heavydirtysoul

I don't understand the test, I don't understand termins. How do you handle the results? What type am I? How can I be ISFP and INTP at the same time? Could anyone explain, please?


----------



## anaraqueen

Ne (extraverted intuition)	22
Ni (introverted intuition)	19.3
Se (extraverted sensing)	32.3
Si (introverted sensing)	26.1
Te (extraverted thinking)	34
Ti (introverted thinking)	17
Fe (extraverted feeling)	20
Fi (introverted feeling)	26

grant-brownsword function type	ESFP
axis-based function type	ENTJ
most likely myers-briggs type	ENTJ

e	n	f	p
88	52.4	34.6	29.5
12.8	48.9	56.1	79.9
i	s	t	j
strong E preference
undifferentiated
moderate T preference
strong J preference




i'm esfp


----------



## Kn0wB34

I took your test on mbtibase.com and decided to take it again. Despite the INTP for the Myers Briggs portion, my Ni score is notably the highest with the Se being low as hell (as usual). So, the test still gets a thumbs up from me....


----------



## Kn0wB34

heavydirtysoul said:


> I don't understand the test, I don't understand termins. How do you handle the results? What type am I? How can I be ISFP and INTP at the same time? Could anyone explain, please?
> 
> View attachment 786258


I wouldn't worry too much about the Myers Brigg portion and even the black box. At the least, the test calculated Fi and Se as your two highest scores, which are the dominant and auxiliary functions for ISFPs anyway. I do admit that 2 ISFPs and one INTP is one interesting calculated result though, lol. 

The same somewhat happened with me for my current results. Two INTJs and one INTP. But, it got my preferred dominant function right (Ni).


----------



## Elwinz

The third one is just dichotomies i think


----------



## vemurea

heavydirtysoul said:


> I don't understand the test, I don't understand termins. How do you handle the results? What type am I? How can I be ISFP and INTP at the same time? Could anyone explain, please?


Yeah, your third result is based on how your responses total up with the assigned values for the eight Myers-Briggs preferences for each question.

I don't really like calling them "dichotomies" because in the way I apply it here, it's sort of anything but—each question gets measured in strength for the eight preferences separately, so one question could theoretically be "strongly feeling" if you agree, but not necessarily "strongly thinking" if you disagree (and vice versa: "strongly anti-thinking" if you agree).

If anything, the real "dichotomy" method would be the axis-based method, where your scores are totaled up on the separate axes and directly compared to each other in a dichotomous manner: "do you have a higher score for Ni/Se or Ne/Si?"


----------



## WintersFlame

What does it mean by axis based function type?


----------



## vemurea

WintersFlame said:


> What does it mean by axis based function type?


The axis-based function type calculates your:
Ne/Si score and compares it against your Se/Ni score, then calculates your…
Fe/Ti score and compares it against your Te/Fi score, then looks for your remaining dominant function within those axes.

e.g. if I score Se/Ni, Te/Fi, and my Te score is the highest out of Te, Se, Ni and Fi, then my axis-based function type will be ENTJ.


----------



## Turi

vemurea said:


> The axis-based function type calculates your:
> Ne/Si score and compares it against your Se/Ni score, then calculates your…
> Fe/Ti score and compares it against your Te/Fi score, then looks for your remaining dominant function within those axes.
> 
> e.g. if I score Se/Ni, Te/Fi, and my Te score is the highest out of Te, Se, Ni and Fi, then my axis-based function type will be ENTJ.


Are you able to access statistics relating to the orientation of the auxiliary function, in comparison to the preferred dichotomy/MBTI type?

ie can you see how many dichotomy INTJ types, prefer Ti over Te, for instance?
..and is there any way to see, in this situation, whether the INTJ prefers more strongly, intuition or thinking?


----------



## SilentScream

anaraqueen said:


> Ne (extraverted intuition) 22
> Ni (introverted intuition) 19.3
> Se (extraverted sensing) 32.3
> Si (introverted sensing) 26.1
> Te (extraverted thinking) 34
> Ti (introverted thinking) 17
> Fe (extraverted feeling) 20
> Fi (introverted feeling) 26
> 
> grant-brownsword function type ESFP
> axis-based function type ENTJ
> most likely myers-briggs type ENTJ
> 
> e n f p
> 88 52.4 34.6 29.5
> 12.8 48.9 56.1 79.9
> i s t j
> strong E preference
> undifferentiated
> moderate T preference
> strong J preference
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i'm esfp


Fits in with one of my theories that ESFP's in the real world today - especially when they're seeking meaning / purpose / answers in life will test XNTJ.

This is mainly for Se-doms btw because the nature of Se is to stick to the moment and therefore we're much more likely to answer tests based on "how we are right now" as opposed to "what we like" because "what we prefer" is deeply intertwined within that single moment. 

E.G. I currently like Photography as a hobby. So if I'm asked "what hobbies do you prefer?" I will answer "Photography". However, my real preference is music, but that preference is now hiding itself from myself because in the current moment I like photography more than I like music. 

I believe that this would be similar in how we answer function tests. Our current preferences will make us believe that our current preferences are our real preferences and it has to do with our existing relationship with reality.


----------



## Nokoiyuh

Ne: 42
Ni: 27.4
Se: 21
Si: 7

Te:15
Ti:17
Fe:34
Fi: 25

Grant function type: ENFP
Axis function type: ENTP
Mostly likely: ENFP

Good test question wise, didn't feel the pain of 100 questions at all. Nicely done! (RIP my Si)


----------



## INForJoking

Ne 22
Ni 44.6
Se 23.3
Si 13.5
Te 20 
Ti 27
Fe 29 
Fi 32

All three said INFJ

Then it said:

ENFP
21.2 96.9 84.5 29.8
92.3 3.4 30.6 66.4
ISTJ


----------



## vemurea

Turi said:


> Are you able to access statistics relating to the orientation of the auxiliary function, in comparison to the preferred dichotomy/MBTI type?
> 
> ie can you see how many dichotomy INTJ types, prefer Ti over Te, for instance?
> ..and is there any way to see, in this situation, whether the INTJ prefers more strongly, intuition or thinking?


That's a fascinating idea—I do have a collection of all the scores, so I went ahead and checked for what the "dominant functions" are for MBTI types by taking the highest function value for any given type, and then compared the theoretical auxiliary function scores against all of the other possible results.

I didn't do any intuition/thinking tests here but I'm sure the following should be enough to extrapolate upon.

I found…
*enfp*
dominant test
30 of 51 instances where ne > all other functions
9 of 51 instances where fe > all other functions
4 of 51 instances where ni > all other functions
4 of 51 instances where se > all other functions
1 of 51 instances where fi > all other functions
1 of 51 instances where ne = ti > all other functions
1 of 51 instances where ne = ni > all other functions
1 of 51 instances where ni = ti > all other functions

auxiliary test
39 of 51 instances where fi > si
37 of 51 instances where fi > te
34 of 51 instances where fi > ti
21 of 51 instances where fi > se
14 of 51 instances where fi > fe
12 of 51 instances where fi > ni
5 of 51 instances where fi > ne

*esfp*
dominant test
1 of 3 instances where se > all other functions
1 of 3 instances where fe > all other functions
1 of 3 instances where si > all other functions

auxiliary test
2 of 3 instances where fi > te
2 of 3 instances where fi > ti
2 of 3 instances where fi > ni
1 of 3 instances where fi > fe
1 of 3 instances where fi > se
1 of 3 instances where fi > ne
1 of 3 instances where fi > si

*entp*
dominant test
50 of 81 instances where ne > all other functions
8 of 81 instances where ni > all other functions
7 of 81 instances where ti > all other functions
4 of 81 instances where te > all other functions
4 of 81 instances where fi > all other functions
5 of 81 instances where se > all other functions
2 of 81 instances where ne = ni > all other functions
1 of 81 instances where te = ti > all other functions

auxiliary test
77 of 81 instances where ti > si
71 of 81 instances where ti > fe
55 of 81 instances where ti > fi
51 of 81 instances where ti > te
41 of 81 instances where ti > se
40 of 81 instances where ti > ni
13 of 81 instances where ti > ne

*estp*
dominant test
5 of 7 instances where se > all other functions
1 of 7 instances where ne > all other functions
1 of 7 instances where ti > all other functions

auxiliary test
6 of 7 instances where ti > te
6 of 7 instances where ti > fe
6 of 7 instances where ti > fi
5 of 7 instances where ti > ni
5 of 7 instances where ti > si
3 of 7 instances where ti > ne
2 of 7 instances where ti > se

*infj*
dominant test
26 of 39 instances where ni > all other functions
5 of 39 instances where ne > all other functions
3 of 39 instances where ti > all other functions
2 of 39 instances where fi > all other functions
1 of 39 instances where si > all other functions
1 of 39 instances where fe > all other functions
1 of 39 instances where se > all other functions

auxiliary test
38 of 39 instances where fe > se
32 of 39 instances where fe > te
27 of 39 instances where fe > si
22 of 39 instances where fe > ne
20 of 39 instances where fe > fi
17 of 39 instances where fe > ti
3 of 39 instances where fe > ni

*isfj*
dominant test
6 of 18 instances where si > all other functions
5 of 18 instances where fi > all other functions
3 of 18 instances where fe > all other functions
2 of 18 instances where ne > all other functions
1 of 18 instances where ti > all other functions
1 of 18 instances where se > all other functions

auxiliary test
13 of 18 instances where fe > se
12 of 18 instances where fe > ne
11 of 18 instances where fe > ni
9 of 18 instances where fe > fi
9 of 18 instances where fe > te
8 of 18 instances where fe > ti
3 of 18 instances where fe > si

*intj*
dominant test
30 of 72 instances where ni > all other functions
20 of 72 instances where ti > all other functions
10 of 72 instances where ne > all other functions
5 of 72 instances where te > all other functions
4 of 72 instances where fi > all other functions
3 of 72 instances where si > all other functions

auxiliary test
67 of 72 instances where te > se
64 of 72 instances where te > fe
51 of 72 instances where te > si
47 of 72 instances where te > ne
33 of 72 instances where te > fi
25 of 72 instances where te > ni
16 of 72 instances where te > ti

*istj*
dominant test
23 of 52 instances where si > all other functions
14 of 52 instances where ti > all other functions
8 of 52 instances where te > all other functions
4 of 52 instances where fi > all other functions
2 of 52 instances where ni > all other functions
1 of 52 instances where se > all other functions

auxiliary test
50 of 52 instances where te > fe
44 of 52 instances where te > se
42 of 52 instances where te > ne
38 of 52 instances where te > ni
24 of 52 instances where te > fi
18 of 52 instances where te > ti
16 of 52 instances where te > si

*enfj*
dominant test
5 of 9 instances where fe > all other functions
3 of 9 instances where ni > all other functions
1 of 9 instances where fi > all other functions

auxiliary test
8 of 9 instances where ni > si
8 of 9 instances where ni > ti
7 of 9 instances where ni > ne
7 of 9 instances where ni > te
7 of 9 instances where ni > fe
7 of 9 instances where ni > se
6 of 9 instances where ni > fi

*entj*
dominant test
7 of 15 instances where te > all other functions
3 of 15 instances where ni > all other functions
3 of 15 instances where se > all other functions
1 of 15 instances where ti > all other functions

auxiliary test
13 of 15 instances where ni > si
13 of 15 instances where ni > ti
11 of 15 instances where ni > fe
9 of 15 instances where ni > fi
8 of 15 instances where ni > ne
8 of 15 instances where ni > se
3 of 15 instances where ni > te

*esfj*
dominant test
3 of 11 instances where si > all other functions
3 of 11 instances where se > all other functions
3 of 11 instances where ti > all other functions
1 of 11 instances where fe > all other functions
1 of 11 instances where fi > all other functions

auxiliary test
11 of 11 instances where si > ne
10 of 11 instances where si > ni
10 of 11 instances where si > te
9 of 11 instances where si > fi
8 of 11 instances where si > ti
7 of 11 instances where si > se
6 of 11 instances where si > fe

*estj*
dominant test
7 of 14 instances where te > all other functions
5 of 14 instances where se > all other functions
1 of 14 instances where si > all other functions
1 of 14 instances where ti > all other functions

auxiliary test
13 of 14 instances where si > ne
12 of 14 instances where si > fe
10 of 14 instances where si > ni
8 of 14 instances where si > fi
7 of 14 instances where si > se
5 of 14 instances where si > ti
3 of 14 instances where si > te

*infp*
dominant test
63 of 138 instances where ne > all other functions
54 of 138 instances where ni > all other functions
12 of 138 instances where fi > all other functions
7 of 138 instances where ti > all other functions
2 of 138 instances where fe > all other functions

auxiliary test
133 of 138 instances where ne > te
132 of 138 instances where ne > se
129 of 138 instances where ne > si
114 of 138 instances where ne > fe
110 of 138 instances where ne > fi
104 of 138 instances where ne > ti
66 of 138 instances where ne > ni

*intp*
dominant test
139 of 312 instances where ne > all other functions
77 of 312 instances where ni > all other functions
61 of 312 instances where ti > all other functions
17 of 312 instances where fi > all other functions
7 of 312 instances where te > all other functions
7 of 312 instances where se > all other functions
4 of 312 instances where si > all other functions

auxiliary test
301 of 312 instances where ne > fe
288 of 312 instances where ne > si
272 of 312 instances where ne > se
261 of 312 instances where ne > te
220 of 312 instances where ne > fi
182 of 312 instances where ne > ti
169 of 312 instances where ne > ni

*isfp*
dominant test
2 of 5 instances where fi > all other functions
2 of 5 instances where ni > all other functions
1 of 5 instances where si > all other functions

auxiliary test
2 of 5 instances where se > te
2 of 5 instances where se > ti
2 of 5 instances where se > fe
1 of 5 instances where se > ne
1 of 5 instances where se > ni
1 of 5 instances where se > si
0 of 5 instances where se > fi

*istp*
dominant test
5 of 18 instances where ne > all other functions
5 of 18 instances where fi > all other functions
3 of 18 instances where ti > all other functions
3 of 18 instances where si > all other functions
1 of 18 instances where se > all other functions
1 of 18 instances where te > all other functions

auxiliary test
16 of 18 instances where se > fe
13 of 18 instances where se > ni
12 of 18 instances where se > te
10 of 18 instances where se > ne
7 of 18 instances where se > si
6 of 18 instances where se > fi
2 of 18 instances where se > ti


----------



## Elwinz

Thanks for data but it does not make any sense at all. Only 12 out of 138 INFPs have dominant Fi?


----------



## SilentScream

Elwinz said:


> Thanks for data but it does not make any sense at all. Only 12 out of 138 INFPs have dominant Fi?


Does make sense to me. It's kind of a PerC trope that a lot of Fi-doms are mistyped.


----------



## DeadOutside

Can anyone tell me how to create a thread, please? x)


----------



## Elwinz

The button here.


----------



## blackpussy

Entp bitch


----------



## JOHRA

what does it mean?

thank you


----------



## ButIHaveNoFear

I'm surprised it typed me as INFP with the way I answered some of those questions! Maybe the low Te was the giveaway. 

Interesting coincidence: I got ENTP on both the axis and Grant-Brownsword function types, and my dad is an ENTP.


----------



## Turi

vemurea said:


> That's a fascinating idea—I do have a collection of all the scores, so I went ahead and checked for what the "dominant functions" are for MBTI types by taking the highest function value for any given type, and then compared the theoretical auxiliary function scores against all of the other possible results.
> 
> I didn't do any intuition/thinking tests here but I'm sure the following should be enough to extrapolate upon.
> 
> I found…
> *enfp*
> dominant test
> 30 of 51 instances where ne > all other functions
> 9 of 51 instances where fe > all other functions
> 4 of 51 instances where ni > all other functions
> 4 of 51 instances where se > all other functions
> 1 of 51 instances where fi > all other functions
> 1 of 51 instances where ne = ti > all other functions
> 1 of 51 instances where ne = ni > all other functions
> 1 of 51 instances where ni = ti > all other functions
> 
> auxiliary test
> 39 of 51 instances where fi > si
> 37 of 51 instances where fi > te
> 34 of 51 instances where fi > ti
> 21 of 51 instances where fi > se
> 14 of 51 instances where fi > fe
> 12 of 51 instances where fi > ni
> 5 of 51 instances where fi > ne
> 
> *esfp*
> dominant test
> 1 of 3 instances where se > all other functions
> 1 of 3 instances where fe > all other functions
> 1 of 3 instances where si > all other functions
> 
> auxiliary test
> 2 of 3 instances where fi > te
> 2 of 3 instances where fi > ti
> 2 of 3 instances where fi > ni
> 1 of 3 instances where fi > fe
> 1 of 3 instances where fi > se
> 1 of 3 instances where fi > ne
> 1 of 3 instances where fi > si
> 
> *entp*
> dominant test
> 50 of 81 instances where ne > all other functions
> 8 of 81 instances where ni > all other functions
> 7 of 81 instances where ti > all other functions
> 4 of 81 instances where te > all other functions
> 4 of 81 instances where fi > all other functions
> 5 of 81 instances where se > all other functions
> 2 of 81 instances where ne = ni > all other functions
> 1 of 81 instances where te = ti > all other functions
> 
> auxiliary test
> 77 of 81 instances where ti > si
> 71 of 81 instances where ti > fe
> 55 of 81 instances where ti > fi
> 51 of 81 instances where ti > te
> 41 of 81 instances where ti > se
> 40 of 81 instances where ti > ni
> 13 of 81 instances where ti > ne
> 
> *estp*
> dominant test
> 5 of 7 instances where se > all other functions
> 1 of 7 instances where ne > all other functions
> 1 of 7 instances where ti > all other functions
> 
> auxiliary test
> 6 of 7 instances where ti > te
> 6 of 7 instances where ti > fe
> 6 of 7 instances where ti > fi
> 5 of 7 instances where ti > ni
> 5 of 7 instances where ti > si
> 3 of 7 instances where ti > ne
> 2 of 7 instances where ti > se
> 
> *infj*
> dominant test
> 26 of 39 instances where ni > all other functions
> 5 of 39 instances where ne > all other functions
> 3 of 39 instances where ti > all other functions
> 2 of 39 instances where fi > all other functions
> 1 of 39 instances where si > all other functions
> 1 of 39 instances where fe > all other functions
> 1 of 39 instances where se > all other functions
> 
> auxiliary test
> 38 of 39 instances where fe > se
> 32 of 39 instances where fe > te
> 27 of 39 instances where fe > si
> 22 of 39 instances where fe > ne
> 20 of 39 instances where fe > fi
> 17 of 39 instances where fe > ti
> 3 of 39 instances where fe > ni
> 
> *isfj*
> dominant test
> 6 of 18 instances where si > all other functions
> 5 of 18 instances where fi > all other functions
> 3 of 18 instances where fe > all other functions
> 2 of 18 instances where ne > all other functions
> 1 of 18 instances where ti > all other functions
> 1 of 18 instances where se > all other functions
> 
> auxiliary test
> 13 of 18 instances where fe > se
> 12 of 18 instances where fe > ne
> 11 of 18 instances where fe > ni
> 9 of 18 instances where fe > fi
> 9 of 18 instances where fe > te
> 8 of 18 instances where fe > ti
> 3 of 18 instances where fe > si
> 
> *intj*
> dominant test
> 30 of 72 instances where ni > all other functions
> 20 of 72 instances where ti > all other functions
> 10 of 72 instances where ne > all other functions
> 5 of 72 instances where te > all other functions
> 4 of 72 instances where fi > all other functions
> 3 of 72 instances where si > all other functions
> 
> auxiliary test
> 67 of 72 instances where te > se
> 64 of 72 instances where te > fe
> 51 of 72 instances where te > si
> 47 of 72 instances where te > ne
> 33 of 72 instances where te > fi
> 25 of 72 instances where te > ni
> 16 of 72 instances where te > ti
> 
> *istj*
> dominant test
> 23 of 52 instances where si > all other functions
> 14 of 52 instances where ti > all other functions
> 8 of 52 instances where te > all other functions
> 4 of 52 instances where fi > all other functions
> 2 of 52 instances where ni > all other functions
> 1 of 52 instances where se > all other functions
> 
> auxiliary test
> 50 of 52 instances where te > fe
> 44 of 52 instances where te > se
> 42 of 52 instances where te > ne
> 38 of 52 instances where te > ni
> 24 of 52 instances where te > fi
> 18 of 52 instances where te > ti
> 16 of 52 instances where te > si
> 
> *enfj*
> dominant test
> 5 of 9 instances where fe > all other functions
> 3 of 9 instances where ni > all other functions
> 1 of 9 instances where fi > all other functions
> 
> auxiliary test
> 8 of 9 instances where ni > si
> 8 of 9 instances where ni > ti
> 7 of 9 instances where ni > ne
> 7 of 9 instances where ni > te
> 7 of 9 instances where ni > fe
> 7 of 9 instances where ni > se
> 6 of 9 instances where ni > fi
> 
> *entj*
> dominant test
> 7 of 15 instances where te > all other functions
> 3 of 15 instances where ni > all other functions
> 3 of 15 instances where se > all other functions
> 1 of 15 instances where ti > all other functions
> 
> auxiliary test
> 13 of 15 instances where ni > si
> 13 of 15 instances where ni > ti
> 11 of 15 instances where ni > fe
> 9 of 15 instances where ni > fi
> 8 of 15 instances where ni > ne
> 8 of 15 instances where ni > se
> 3 of 15 instances where ni > te
> 
> *esfj*
> dominant test
> 3 of 11 instances where si > all other functions
> 3 of 11 instances where se > all other functions
> 3 of 11 instances where ti > all other functions
> 1 of 11 instances where fe > all other functions
> 1 of 11 instances where fi > all other functions
> 
> auxiliary test
> 11 of 11 instances where si > ne
> 10 of 11 instances where si > ni
> 10 of 11 instances where si > te
> 9 of 11 instances where si > fi
> 8 of 11 instances where si > ti
> 7 of 11 instances where si > se
> 6 of 11 instances where si > fe
> 
> *estj*
> dominant test
> 7 of 14 instances where te > all other functions
> 5 of 14 instances where se > all other functions
> 1 of 14 instances where si > all other functions
> 1 of 14 instances where ti > all other functions
> 
> auxiliary test
> 13 of 14 instances where si > ne
> 12 of 14 instances where si > fe
> 10 of 14 instances where si > ni
> 8 of 14 instances where si > fi
> 7 of 14 instances where si > se
> 5 of 14 instances where si > ti
> 3 of 14 instances where si > te
> 
> *infp*
> dominant test
> 63 of 138 instances where ne > all other functions
> 54 of 138 instances where ni > all other functions
> 12 of 138 instances where fi > all other functions
> 7 of 138 instances where ti > all other functions
> 2 of 138 instances where fe > all other functions
> 
> auxiliary test
> 133 of 138 instances where ne > te
> 132 of 138 instances where ne > se
> 129 of 138 instances where ne > si
> 114 of 138 instances where ne > fe
> 110 of 138 instances where ne > fi
> 104 of 138 instances where ne > ti
> 66 of 138 instances where ne > ni
> 
> *intp*
> dominant test
> 139 of 312 instances where ne > all other functions
> 77 of 312 instances where ni > all other functions
> 61 of 312 instances where ti > all other functions
> 17 of 312 instances where fi > all other functions
> 7 of 312 instances where te > all other functions
> 7 of 312 instances where se > all other functions
> 4 of 312 instances where si > all other functions
> 
> auxiliary test
> 301 of 312 instances where ne > fe
> 288 of 312 instances where ne > si
> 272 of 312 instances where ne > se
> 261 of 312 instances where ne > te
> 220 of 312 instances where ne > fi
> 182 of 312 instances where ne > ti
> 169 of 312 instances where ne > ni
> 
> *isfp*
> dominant test
> 2 of 5 instances where fi > all other functions
> 2 of 5 instances where ni > all other functions
> 1 of 5 instances where si > all other functions
> 
> auxiliary test
> 2 of 5 instances where se > te
> 2 of 5 instances where se > ti
> 2 of 5 instances where se > fe
> 1 of 5 instances where se > ne
> 1 of 5 instances where se > ni
> 1 of 5 instances where se > si
> 0 of 5 instances where se > fi
> 
> *istp*
> dominant test
> 5 of 18 instances where ne > all other functions
> 5 of 18 instances where fi > all other functions
> 3 of 18 instances where ti > all other functions
> 3 of 18 instances where si > all other functions
> 1 of 18 instances where se > all other functions
> 1 of 18 instances where te > all other functions
> 
> auxiliary test
> 16 of 18 instances where se > fe
> 13 of 18 instances where se > ni
> 12 of 18 instances where se > te
> 10 of 18 instances where se > ne
> 7 of 18 instances where se > si
> 6 of 18 instances where se > fi
> 2 of 18 instances where se > ti


This is brilliant, thanks.

Looks like an overwhelming amount of people do not prefer their auxiliary in the opposite orientation to the dominant.


----------



## Turi

Elwinz said:


> Thanks for data but it does not make any sense at all. Only 12 out of 138 INFPs have dominant Fi?


Yep, 12 of 138 instances where Fi was dominant, over all other functions in either attitude, as I understand it - but, let's isolate INFP for a moment and break it down a tad.

If you will notice, "66 of 138 instances where ne > ni" means _most _INFPs prefer N_i _here, as well - same story here for almost all of the types, which makes complete sense when you look further into the theory than Myers misinterpretations (and the infinite disciples that followed).

Also, "63 of 138 instances where ne > all other functions" means that almost half of all INFPs also prefer N_e_ over all other functions - including Fi.

Now these Ne and Ni numbers seem a little awkward on the surface - it looks like, almost half prefer Ne over all other functions for dominant, yet most prefer Ni over Ne for auxiliary - what does this tell you, if you connect the dots?

That both Ni and Ne are preferred - this is evidenced in the xNx*P* preference, and this idea, this I/E clash right here, is where I believe the main clash was in Jungs work - not any alternating I/E occurrence due to the dom-aux relationship, it supports the idea that introverted types 'extrovert' their dominant function, not some random auxiliary. 

More than this, however, it also tells us that a whole slew of INFPs are actually preferring an _extroverted _perceiving function as their dominant function, and are _not _leading with a function in the introverted attitude at all - this supports my theory that basically nobody knows WTF they're talking about re: I/E.

I can't wait to dive into these statistics later on, because upon a brief glance it appears to verify a lot of theories I've posited (and others) regarding the theory and peoples understanding of the theory.

I'm aware we're at the mercy of the OPs understandings and calculation methods, however.


----------



## 543452

This test was interesting. Here's what I got. By the way, I answered everything with thought and honesty. 



Ne (extraverted intuition)=20
Ni (introverted intuition)=42.9
Se (extraverted sensing)=23.7
Si (introverted sensing)=8.7
Te (extraverted thinking)=30
Ti (introverted thinking)=43
Fe (extraverted feeling)=8
Fi (introverted feeling)=34

grant-brownsword function type=ISTP
axis-based function type=INTJ
most likely myers-briggs type=INTJ

e n f p
-7.4 119.2 -25.1 50.5
117 -12.8 118 54.8
i s t j
clear I preference
clear N preference
clear T preference
undifferentiated


----------



## Windblownhair

Fascinating stuff.


----------



## Mr Castelo




----------



## Agent X

Ne (extraverted intuition)	32.7
Ni (introverted intuition)	40.3
Se (extraverted sensing)	26.3
Si (introverted sensing)	13.5
Te (extraverted thinking)	34
Ti (introverted thinking)	31
Fe (extraverted feeling)	12
Fi (introverted feeling)	38

grant-brownsword function type	INTJ
axis-based function type	INTJ
most likely myers-briggs type	INTP

e n f p
9.6 118.7 -8.4 57
105.9 -9.9 101.8 51.2
i s t j
clear I preference
clear N preference
clear T preference
undifferentiated

Very impressive test. Personally, I was not expecting to score that high on Se.. how quaint. I would say it's accurate because on all tests I test on the border of J and P. Ultimately, I know J has the margin in that regard.


----------



## Crysantheme

Ne - 35.7
Ni - 25.6
Se - 18
Si - 10.8
Te - 26
Ti - 28
Fe - 26
Fi - 18
Grant dude mbti - entp
Axis based - entp
Dichtonomy - infp

Keys to kognition result also entp 
I need to work on my Fi


----------



## SpaceTimeFormula

Ne- 16
Ni- 34
Se- 24
Si- 25.7
Te- 24
Ti- 32
Fe- 23
Fi- 24

strong I preference
slight N preference
undifferentiated
moderate J preference

e n f p
20.8 61.5 54.3 28.9
79.4 41 53.4 73.3
i s t j

Grant-brownsword function type- ISTP
Axis-based function type- INFJ
Most likely myers-briggs type- INFJ

I liked how through this test was. Alot of tests use either-or dichotomies, and that's too black-and-white to sit right with me. Still surprised I got Ti over Te, though.


----------



## Knave




----------



## Lakigigar




----------



## TB_Wisdom

I commend you for the effort.
Scored as INTJ/INTJ/INTP.

I don't think that we can make accurate tests based on the cognitive functions. The cognitive functional mess/confusion is currently the biggest problem in the community. It creates so much distress, confusion, anxiety and mistypings. The attitude differences are not consistent with Jungs or MB's definitions. E.g., Ti supposed to be process/data oriented and Te only results oriented? That's inaccurate, just because some people have unsophisticated Te, doesn't mean Te cannot be highly accurate and mathematical for those who have developed Te. Yet, in those tests (similar to Dario Nardis test), such usage of Te will score as "Ti".

In short: The attitude differences (e/i) in functions does not change the nature of the functions (cf. Jung, Myers Briggs) in the extent these kinds of functional tests propose. These tests must be consistent with the Jungian definition of e/i and not add own definitions, its all about object vs. subject or outward-oriented vs. inward oriented. Thus, Ni is exactly like Ne, except Ni does everything that Ne does but in the inner subjective world, i.e., in your mind. So, as Ne seeks to explore possibilities and multiple options in the outer reality, Ni does the same thing except inside our minds. This, Jung wrote himself in his book Psychological Types chapter 10. Same goes for other functions, e.g. Fe/Fi: Fe seeks harmony and aligning itself with right/wrong as judged from the outer world, and Fi seeks the same thing but in the inner world. Using this Jungian definition, one will quickly realize that the functions are quite the same, the only difference is the direction of energy: outer (e) or inner (i). 

This is what the MBTI tests for, and why the MBTI is the most accurate test to date.


----------



## Belledonna

Ne (extraverted intuition)	43.3
Ni (introverted intuition)	37
Se (extraverted sensing)	19
Si (introverted sensing)	7.8
Te (extraverted thinking)	21
Ti (introverted thinking)	22
Fe (extraverted feeling)	25
Fi (introverted feeling)	33

grant-brownsword function type	ENFP
axis-based function type	INTJ
most likely myers-briggs type	INFP

e	n	f	p
50.4	139.7	48.6	124.1
68.1	-49.9	44.2	-16
i	s	t	j
unclear I preference
clear N preference
undifferentiated
clear P preference

Only thing I can say is 'impressive, dear'

Only recently I discovered that I am Enfp and this typed me correctly. And gosh this test is so good. It's not so easy to guess the outcome.

I have thought I am Infj for a long time, but thanks to many people here, I know I have Ne dominant and Fi aux.

Though I look like I have higher Ti because I use them for analyzing and processing data. I just use them by sorting each data into ... organized and clear form, (or can be said accurate) not just only result oriented.

I think Ti and Te are the same as Fi and Fe. It rather how we project out T-ness than the process. (project in personal (yes logic can be quite personal) or impersonal and empirical way).

Te is about finding the best access to the desired outcome (which can be Ti ish in process). Ti is about finding the absolute answer (which can be Te ish in outcome)

Still both of them are the same. They are the understanding.

The same way Ne-dom are scatterbrained. We can be either the most scatterbrained or the most intense in one person. Still I admit Ne are more scatterbrained than Ni users.

Still the test is impressive.


----------



## grumpytiger

vemurea said:


> Hi! I'm stopping by here to share a test I made recently for both MBTI and the cognitive functions.


Cool test. However, the axis-based algorithm seems buggy.


See my results:









Or:

Si (introverted sensing) 35.5
Se (extraverted sensing) 30.3
Te (extraverted thinking) 29.0
Ti (introverted thinking) 28.0
Fi (introverted feeling) 24.0
Fe (extraverted feeling) 12.0
Ni (introverted intuition) 10.5
Ne (extraverted intuition) 1.0

grant-brownsword function type ISTJ
axis-based function type ESFP
most likely myers-briggs type ISTJ

e n f p
38.5 -16.3 4.1 -15.2
53.6 141.8 94.4 125.6
i s t j

unclear I preference
clear S preference
clear T preference
clear J preference


How do you get to calculate ESFP from Si>Se and Te>Fi?

And loool, 1 for Ne. Yeah, that's about right.


----------



## grumpytiger

TB_Wisdom said:


> I commend you for the effort.
> Scored as INTJ/INTJ/INTP.
> 
> I don't think that we can make accurate tests based on the cognitive functions. The cognitive functional mess/confusion is currently the biggest problem in the community. It creates so much distress, confusion, anxiety and mistypings. The attitude differences are not consistent with Jungs or MB's definitions. E.g., Ti supposed to be process/data oriented and Te only results oriented? That's inaccurate, just because some people have unsophisticated Te, doesn't mean Te cannot be highly accurate and mathematical for those who have developed Te. Yet, in those tests (similar to Dario Nardis test), such usage of Te will score as "Ti".


Hell yeah haha.

Though for the Ti/Te part I would say, it's simpler than that. If you are IxTx, you are going to have a quite distinct Ti too somewhere. (I'm using the simple definition of Thinking with the introverted attitude added to it, no complication beyond that with the MBTI function definitions floating out there.)




> Using this Jungian definition, one will quickly realize that the functions are quite the same, the only difference is the direction of energy: outer (e) or inner (i).


I have one little problem with the outer/inner distinction as used to denote extraversion/introversion. These terms are ambiguous. I read before about how feelings (and yes MBTI Feeling deals with these too) are internal things, and I have to agree, also Intuition is pretty much not directly "out there". While Thinking and Sensing deal with facts more that are more external compared to these. So, yeah, on the whole I have a problem with this terminology.


----------



## Ocean Helm

grumpytiger said:


> How do you get to calculate ESFP from Si>Se and Te>Fi?


Because Se + Ni > Ne + Si, so you are Se-Ni axis, and Te + Fi > Fe + Ti, so you are Te-Fi axis. And of Se, Ni, Te, and Fi, Se is your strongest. It's not a bug in the implementation of the theory, but rather what may be called a weakness in the classification system itself.


----------



## grumpytiger

Ocean Helm said:


> Because Se + Ni > Ne + Si, so you are Se-Ni axis, and Te + Fi > Fe + Ti, so you are Te-Fi axis. And of Se, Ni, Te, and Fi, Se is your strongest. It's not a bug in the implementation of the theory, but rather what may be called a weakness in the classification system itself.


OK, that's a buggy idea yeah.


----------



## Exy

> Ne (extraverted intuition)	32.3
> Fi (introverted feeling)	30
> Si (introverted sensing)	25.7
> Fe (extraverted feeling)	20
> Ni (introverted intuition)	15.4
> Se (extraverted sensing)	13
> Te (extraverted thinking)	13
> Ti (introverted thinking)	11
> 
> grant-brownsword function type:	INFP
> axis-based function type:	ENFP
> most likely myers-briggs type:	INFP
> 
> moderate I preference (65.3)
> unclear N preference (53.7)
> strong F preference (65.3)
> clear P preference (97.6)


Interesting that I test so low on Te and Ti, but my F to T preference is still only 'strong'.


----------



## Kaioken

Damn how retarded to put the Agree axis on the left and Disagreement on the right. I completed the test in the wrong side.

Ne (extraverted intuition)	10.3
Ni (introverted intuition)	10.1
Se (extraverted sensing)	33.3
Si (introverted sensing)	25.1
Te (extraverted thinking)	17
Ti (introverted thinking)	11
Fe (extraverted feeling)	30
Fi (introverted feeling)	23

grant-brownsword function type	ESFP
axis-based function type	ESTP
most likely myers-briggs type	ESFJ

That would make
INTJ
INFJ
INTP

What are the first two results?


----------



## Dark Inferno

Wow, the grant-brownsword function type and axis-based function type are polar opposite ...


----------



## Crystal Winter Dream

Ne (extraverted intuition)	38.7
Ni (introverted intuition)	33.3
Se (extraverted sensing)	11.7
Si (introverted sensing) 29.1
Te (extraverted thinking)	30
Ti (introverted thinking) 28
Fe (extraverted feeling) 24
Fi (introverted feeling) 40

grant-brownsword function type	INFP
axis-based function type	INFP
most likely myers-briggs type	INFJ

e n f p
30.5 88.9 69 36.1
91.5 21.2 43.1 78.3
i s t j
strong I preference
strong N preference
moderate F preference
moderate J preference

I've always had issues with Fe vs. Fi especially on these, usually tests tell me it is equal so this is pretty good.


----------



## Persona Maiden

What does grant-brownsword function type and axis-based function type mean? Not familiar with those terms.


----------



## soop

Maybe I'm an N type, maybe I'm a J type, I dont know anymore, but it doesnt seem right.

Dont worry, my phone is charging.

Lol RIP Fi...


----------



## SweetApparition

Ne (extraverted intuition)	29
Ni (introverted intuition)	18.4
Se (extraverted sensing)	27
Si (introverted sensing)	20.7
Te (extraverted thinking)	5
Ti (introverted thinking)	16
Fe (extraverted feeling)	22
Fi (introverted feeling)	33

grant-brownsword function type	INFP
axis-based function type	INFP
most likely myers-briggs type	INFP

e	n	f	p
40.1	71.7	71.8	69.2
60.8	25.7	20.8	30.8
i	s	t	j
slight I preference
moderate N preference
clear F preference
moderate P preference
——————

I’m an ISFP, I tell you! 99.999% sure. Every function development test gives me moderate to high Ne - I believe it might actually be a measurement of Fi (and Se?) though. Maybe? Or is it possible that I’m just a weird, Ne filled ISFP? While I’m not as quick on my feet or quite as verbally adept as Ne doms and aux’s are, I have a distaste for tradition and duty, love weirdness/novelty/random things, can come up with odd or funny ideas/stories on the fly, blah, blah, and on and on. And then there’s my poor Te...;-; 😛

Anyway, nice work creating this test! It was fun!


----------



## 0wl

This was a pretty good and interesting test. I got:


----------



## Colonel_Godawful

Interesting - as noted elsewhere, I've gotten three divergent Myers-Briggs types in the past, but this test has strengthened the case that I'm actually an INTJ


----------



## Mister Bimbo

Brown Bird said:


> Ne (extraverted intuition)	28.3
> Ni (introverted intuition)	14.9
> Se (extraverted sensing)	28
> Si (introverted sensing)	23.7
> Te (extraverted thinking)	12
> Ti (introverted thinking)	8
> Fe (extraverted feeling)	25
> Fi (introverted feeling)	33
> 
> grant-brownsword function type	INFP
> axis-based function type	ESTJ
> most likely myers-briggs type	ISFP
> 
> e	n	f	p
> 36	43	63.4	95.9
> 58.5	52.1	46.9	9.1
> i	s	t	j
> slight I preference
> undifferentiated
> slight F preference
> clear P preference
> 
> Fun test. I think the butterfllies tied everything together.


I'm so confused and I dunno how this test works. I mean why the hell are you receiving ESTJ as your axis-based type?Do they just randomly pick one of the 4 types that hast the share the same functions or is this just a bug?

Here are my personal results from this test (which was kinda good but nothing really new) btw. Didn't expect my Te destroying my Fi.









E:Here my pic with less ugliness:


----------



## Brown Bird

Mister Bimbo said:


> I'm so confused and I dunno how this test works. I mean why the hell are you receiving ESTJ as your axis-based type?Do they just randomly pick one of the 4 types that hast the share the same functions or is this just a bug?
> 
> Here are my personal results from this test (which was kinda good but nothing really new) btw. Didn't expect my Te destroying my Fi.
> 
> View attachment 802673
> 
> 
> E:Here my pic with less ugliness:


I don't know either how all this is figured, but I usually get ISFP or INFP as a result. It looks like your worked out for the most part.


----------



## Juicepop

So, I'm pretty confused on this but I've been very interested in mbti for a long time. I'm trying to learn more about functions and what not. I took this and am pretty confused. 










My N and S functions are basically the same. Ti and Fi are tied too. And I get two ENFPs but then INTP?
If someone can explain this to me in a simple way I'd be super interested but I'm just confused rn lol.
I usually get INTP on mbti tests so that seems to be accurate at least.


----------



## Dissentient

Ne (extraverted intuition)	32
Ni (introverted intuition)	36.6
Se (extraverted sensing)	15.7
Si (introverted sensing)	25.1
Te (extraverted thinking)	31
Ti (introverted thinking)	27
Fe (extraverted feeling)	21
Fi (introverted feeling)	28

grant-brownsword function type	INTJ
axis-based function type	ENFP
most likely myers-briggs type	INFJ


----------



## Schizoid

I got INTP in this quiz. Seems like I have strong Ne and Ni, lol.

Ne (extraverted intuition) 47.7 
Ni (introverted intuition) 43.4 
Se (extraverted sensing) 27.3 
Si (introverted sensing) 24.1 
Te (extraverted thinking) 30 
Ti (introverted thinking) 35 
Fe (extraverted feeling) 33 
Fi (introverted feeling) 43 


grant-brownsword function type ENFP 
axis-based function type ENFP 
most likely myers-briggs type INTP


----------



## great_pudgy_owl

Was easier than many tests I've taken already (may be because I'm used to the wording by now).


----------



## Lunescope

Ne (extraverted intuition) 41.7 
Ni (introverted intuition) 28.1 
Se (extraverted sensing) 14
Si (introverted sensing) 22.7
Te (extraverted thinking) 7
Ti (introverted thinking) 19
Fe (extraverted feeling) 20
Fi (introverted feeling) 37

grant-brownsword function type	INFP
axis-based function type	ENFP
most likely myers-briggs type	INFP

e	n	f	p
12.7	89.2	73.7	101
97.7	16.9	26.7	2
i	s	t	j

clear I preference 
strong N preference 
strong F preference 
clear P preference 


I'm not too positive on my type yet, but mostly see myself as either INFP or ISFJ (or ISFP, INFJ, ENFP... idk). Ne was higher than I expected it to be and I also thought Si would be higher and Ni lower, as well as thinking Fe and Fi would possibly be a bit tied (as these are what usually happens whenever I take tests like this). Though my Te and Se are always the lowest haha.


----------



## poco a poco

Ne (extraverted intuition)	40
Ni (introverted intuition)	33
Se (extraverted sensing)	12
Si (introverted sensing)	26.8
Te (extraverted thinking)	19
Ti (introverted thinking)	28
Fe (extraverted feeling)	23
Fi (introverted feeling)	34


grant-brownsword function type	INFP
axis-based function type	ENFP
most likely myers-briggs type	INFP

e	n	f	p
28.1	117.5 60.5 93.4
85.8	-6.5	35.7	10.4
i	s	t	j


strong I preference
clear N preference
moderate F preference
clear P preference




Good test~
So about the axis... would that mean I'm on the Ne-Si axis even if I'm an INFP? I'm not that familiar with the idea of axis-based function types


----------



## Mister Bimbo

poco a poco said:


> Ne (extraverted intuition)	40
> Ni (introverted intuition)	33
> Se (extraverted sensing)	12
> Si (introverted sensing)	26.8
> Te (extraverted thinking)	19
> Ti (introverted thinking)	28
> Fe (extraverted feeling)	23
> Fi (introverted feeling)	34
> 
> 
> grant-brownsword function type	INFP
> axis-based function type	ENFP
> most likely myers-briggs type	INFP
> 
> e	n	f	p
> 28.1	117.5 60.5 93.4
> 85.8	-6.5	35.7	10.4
> i	s	t	j
> 
> 
> strong I preference
> clear N preference
> moderate F preference
> clear P preference
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good test~
> So about the axis... would that mean I'm on the Ne-Si axis even if I'm an INFP? I'm not that familiar with the idea of axis-based function types


I think I tragically don't understand your question. INFP's are always on that Ne-Si-axis.


----------



## poco a poco

Mister Bimbo said:


> I think I tragically don't understand your question. INFP's are always on that Ne-Si-axis.


LOL no worries, I think I didn’t word it very well
I meant like, would that mean Ne-Si is what I currently use most /what I demonstrate most lately even if Fi is my main function in the grand scheme of things


----------



## DeadOutside

that is false.


----------



## The Dude

Retook it...

_Ne (extraverted intuition)	20
Ni (introverted intuition)	17
Se (extraverted sensing)	25
Si (introverted sensing)	21.8
Te (extraverted thinking)	21
Ti (introverted thinking)	24
Fe (extraverted feeling)	23
Fi (introverted feeling)	26

grant-brownsword function type	ESFP
axis-based function type	ISFP
most likely myers-briggs type	INTP

e	n	f	p
49.3	73.3	31.8	62.6
50.7	22.4	60.5	35.8
i	s	t	j
undifferentiated
strong N preference
moderate T preference
slight P preference
_

Can't really disagree. People on here are frequently typing me as an ESFP, and I've received INTP more than any other type on official MBTI assessments...still leaning towards other types.


----------



## Mister Bimbo

The Dude said:


> Retook it...
> 
> _Ne (extraverted intuition)	20
> Ni (introverted intuition)	17
> Se (extraverted sensing)	25
> Si (introverted sensing)	21.8
> Te (extraverted thinking)	21
> Ti (introverted thinking)	24
> Fe (extraverted feeling)	23
> Fi (introverted feeling)	26
> 
> grant-brownsword function type	ESFP
> axis-based function type	ISFP
> most likely myers-briggs type	INTP
> 
> e	n	f	p
> 49.3	73.3	31.8	62.6
> 50.7	22.4	60.5	35.8
> i	s	t	j
> undifferentiated
> strong N preference
> moderate T preference
> slight P preference
> _
> 
> Can't really disagree. People on here are frequently typing me as an ESFP, and I've received INTP more than any other type on official MBTI assessments...still leaning towards other types.


maybe you are *THE ULTIMATE BALANCED TYPE.*


----------



## Mister Bimbo

Juicepop said:


> So, I'm pretty confused on this but I've been very interested in mbti for a long time. I'm trying to learn more about functions and what not. I took this and am pretty confused.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My N and S functions are basically the same. Ti and Fi are tied too. And I get two ENFPs but then INTP?
> If someone can explain this to me in a simple way I'd be super interested but I'm just confused rn lol.
> I usually get INTP on mbti tests so that seems to be accurate at least.


I'm not a 100% how this very outlandish algorythm works BUT I'll help you.
The test probably thougt: "Hmm, lets sort the functions according to their values."

dominant: Ne = Ni
aux: Ti = Fi
ter: Te > Fe
inferior: Se = Si

"INTJ and INFJ can't be because Ti and Fi are stronger than Te and Fe.
ENTP can't be because Te is stronger than Fe.
So I'm guessing ENFP!"

The INTP result is based on your seperate results inside the little grey box at the bottom.


----------



## Killstead

I think I got confused on some of the questions or didn't have an opinion one way or another. 😕

Ne (extraverted intuition)	39.3
Ni (introverted intuition)	35.8
Se (extraverted sensing)	16
Si (introverted sensing)	18.7
Te (extraverted thinking)	21
Ti (introverted thinking)	32
Fe (extraverted feeling)	12
Fi (introverted feeling)	32

grant-brownsword function type	ENFP
axis-based function type	ENFP
most likely myers-briggs type	INTP

e	n f	p
-0.5	113.9	-8.2	101
113.7	-14.8	97.1	9
i s t j
clear I preference
clear N preference
clear T preference
clear P preference


----------



## Deftodon

Ne (extraverted intuition)15.7Ni (introverted intuition)33.8Se (extraverted sensing)6Si (introverted sensing)14.7Te (extraverted thinking)14Ti (introverted thinking)32Fe (extraverted feeling)3Fi (introverted feeling)33




grant-brownsword function typeINTJaxis-based function typeINTJmost likely myers-briggs typeINTP



enfp-31.283.50.349139.924.891.746.5istjclear I preference strong N preference clear T preference undifferentiated  


----------



## Izo - neXus

Accurate enough, though Ti and Fe can't be that high.


----------



## leictreon




----------



## morgandollar

I got ENFP as my most likely Myers-Briggs type, though my "Axis type" is INTP. Interesting.


----------



## Karma Butterfly

Yup, accurate.


----------



## Daeva

Nice. Accurate.

Function-wise I am *Ti > Se=Ni > Fe* hands down.

Dichotomy-wise I am *INTJ *or *INFJ*, depending on the test or mood.


----------



## fairgeek

I found this in a group a few days back and had a bit of trouble with this one. Sometimes I have this issue with function tests- they don't account for stress and can't identify when someone is stressed for their type. When I'm stressed some of the scores are much higher of the lesser-used functions.

...right now that's Fi. The difference between the ENFP it typed me as and myself (pretty sure I'm ENTP, although INTP is always possible) is that I don't have positive Fi by any means (it's critical and mostly frustration), and I don't value emotional reasons to provide some kind of moral grounds for choices, nor do I normally choose anything out of morals or feelings. I have had friends who were ENFP, and although we like similar things and get along well, we are still very different people in terms of warmth and how we reason through things.

This time on the test Ti&Fi were basically equal, following Ne.

When I react with Fi is when I'm stressed or in bad relationships, it's never a healthy moment for me. I'd make for a pretty unhealthy and prickly ENFP! I do rather enjoy debating and countering arguments, with little care about hurting feelings. But I make a good host and am able to care for group needs and eventually stop arguing if I realize it's souring a relationship. I just don't necessarily recognize individual or group emotional needs

I typically also have high Ni, following Ne. This doesn't make sense to some. But statements about enjoying mystical things or symbolism get to me - I do enjoy those also. Half of my ideas are also aha moments, although I have books filled with ideas, often going on tangents from each other. Eventually you do have to try some, and the real world calls for you to try to stick to them and see them through. This is difficult. Another ENTP besides myself and I are both attempting this now with our inventions, but I have a handful in the box to the side that are unfinished and abandoned projects.

Se scored higher than Si. I have secret desires to have a home and have some traditions, but like many NTPs, have not developed Si. It scores very low. Meanwhile, I'm likely an enneagram 7. I do enjoy novel, new activities - mostly for the idea of them then when it comes down to actually doing them .. I climb and bike and like to explore: but I'm not in it for the view or the thrill. I'm quite cautious, unable to be fully in the present, and can prevent myself from really enjoying anything. Tests like keys2cognition are not fooled by this, but many function tests including this are. I do have higher Si, and after dating an ESTJ for awhile now I've become more aware of and even partial to it. 

Keys2cognition gives me ENTP as does similarminds functions, although IDR labs has suggested INTJ. I'm fairly, definitely certain I'm not ENFP.

I really do think some kind of filter to test if the person answering is stressed or not first could change the results drastically. Then you could have a section about stress and a section about how they were the last time they weren't stressed. This could allow for the shadow functions to be tested instead of their artificially high scores impacting results in these cases. Then again, that happens to me on all function tests so...

Also there's the issue where people default to how their partners or relatives see them versus how they function. Close emotional relationships may be very different, especially if they are tense, the words those people use to describe you can alter results. Some disclaimers at the top can help point people in the direction of "how you see yourself" and remind them to not rely too heavily on how others describe them. 

Te is also tricky for academics: we spend half the time in our lives backing sources up with data and journal citations for papers. We are trained to do this and it seeps out into everyday life. I was never that person before university, or when I started as a stoner kid, now I am. Ti still ranks higher for me, but developing Te in a way that I can't neglect for these answers likely alters my scores. Perhaps there's a way to differentiate between work-life/academia and these precise statistics Te users seem to always have?

Perhaps I'm asking the wrong questions entirely when I should be asking if we can truly, objectively measure functions given how people will change responses depending on their stress levels. And if a question like "staying true to yourself" can really be asked on this kind of test? presumably it tests Fi, while Ti and Ni users may also think they are being true to themselves.


----------



## vemurea

I hope I'm quoting you correctly, sincere apologies if you don't see this… 



fairgeek said:


> Perhaps I'm asking the wrong questions entirely when I should be asking if we can truly, objectively measure functions given how people will change responses depending on their stress levels. And if a question like "staying true to yourself" can really be asked on this kind of test? presumably it tests Fi, while Ti and Ni users may also think they are being true to themselves.


Sort of yes, sort of no. I want to focus on one theme in particular in your concerns, because I think it's something that must be addressed in order to understand how type dynamics, variability in behavior, and their explanations through both the framework "cognitive functions" provide and the framework that an assumption rooted in the limitlessness of personality provide are all intertwined.

That theme would be the distinction you kind of make between _learned behavior_ such as this...


fairgeek said:


> Te is also tricky for academics: we spend half the time in our lives backing sources up with data and journal citations for papers. We are trained to do this and it seeps out into everyday life. I was never that person before university, or when I started as a stoner kid, now I am.


...and _natural behavior_ such as this:


fairgeek said:


> Ti still ranks higher for me, but developing Te in a way that I can't neglect for these answers likely alters my scores. Perhaps there's a way to differentiate between work-life/academia and these precise statistics Te users seem to always have?


I really, really like the last question you ask because it really does bring everything into greater perspective. _Is_ there a way to differentiate the behavior we develop and the behavior we learn?

I'm not really sure. I could straight up ask on the test, perhaps, if you feel that you agree or disagree with a statement on the test because you feel like it's a "natural preference" or a "learned preference," and then the test no longer carries the burden of having to assume that everything is a "natural preference."

But regardless of how much more accurately you feel the test would return your results based on that added weight, there is still a _huge_ problem to consider. Please bear with me for a bit, because this is tricky to explain.

I mentioned before that the test assumes everything inputted into the algorithm accounts for a "natural preference," but this is technically incorrect if the function type it returns to you doesn't take into account the scores of all the functions; having created the algorithm for the test, I can tell you that this is true: the test will only take a single equation that takes four functions at a time and compare the sixteen different values it gets to finally push out a type.

In other words, the test doesn't _really_ assume that everything is a "natural preference," but instead churns out a type based on your conscious agreement or disagreement with the statements it gives you. If it did assume every conscious decision made on the test was a "natural preference," then the test would simply not be accounting for real preferences you have in giving you your type. And that wouldn't be a very good thing, would it?

So in a way, we're kind of assuming here that the test is dealing with natural preferences when it's not really part of the picture. We can't assume that the function types it outputs are based on any specific type of preference other than "conscious preference." 

Here is where it might be a little bit hard to swallow: the cognitive functions don't really know how to distinguish natural, learned, or stressed preferences in a viable way, because everything kind of overlaps when it comes back to the one level we can absolutely relate to these things on—the conscious level. Is my preference for liking strawberries over grapes natural or learned? Does that change when I'm under stress? Truth be told, I don't really know, and I feel like it's not really important to know. The important part lies simply in knowing that I _do_, in fact, prefer strawberries over grapes. 

But to compare this directly to something typology-related, we can try something like the Enneagram: a blind-spot for self-preservation is often characterized with the same traits that an unhealthy dominant preference for self-preservation is characterized by. How could I distinguish sp/so from unhealthy so/sx?

The truth is that I _can't_ unless there really is a way to differentiate these on a conscious level. The same law applies to the functions—do I have a tertiary preference for Fi (INTJ), or an inferior preference for Fe (INTP)? Do I have a preference for Te (ESTJ) or is it just Se-Ti mimicking Te (ESTP)? Am I as cool as I am because of a preference for Ni-Te (INTJ) or is it just a Ti-Ni loop (ISTP)? Is it Fi (ENFP) or just a shadow preference that comes up when I'm stressed (ENTP)?

So when you mention this…


fairgeek said:


> Sometimes I have this issue with function tests- they don't account for stress and can't identify when someone is stressed for their type. When I'm stressed some of the scores are much higher of the lesser-used functions.
> 
> ...right now that's Fi. The difference between the ENFP it typed me as and myself (pretty sure I'm ENTP, although INTP is always possible) is that I don't have positive Fi by any means (it's critical and mostly frustration), and I don't value emotional reasons to provide some kind of moral grounds for choices, nor do I normally choose anything out of morals or feelings.


…I feel like you mean to make more out of the test than it really tells you. Similarminds and keys2cognition suffer from the same problem, but I would guess that you're more okay with it because the definitions and algorithms they use return a type that you believe you are. 

A test should only return to you what you give to it, otherwise it would be incorrect in assuming that something exists that may or may not really exist. Ironically, a lot of typology is based around that kind of notion: just because I score E, N, F, and P on the official MBTI doesn't necessarily mean that I best correspond to the Ne-Fi-Te-Si archetype, and relating to a certain function type that isn't the type I scored doesn't necessarily mean the type I scored was the wrong type. Why would that be? Because they're two different things, or arguably, so many different things.

I want to tie it all together into one much bigger argument: each source for the cognitive functions has a completely different interpretation of what they mean, and there is nothing that centralizes what's "correct" and what "isn't correct." Some editions of the cognitive functions account for four functions, some eight functions, some shadow functions, some loops, some stress behaviors, some inferior blind-spots, some function axes, some mental disorders, and so on... there isn't a single theory I could call "the cognitive functions," but I could point toward disparate sources with their own interpretations of "the cognitive functions" and say that's ABC's theory or that's DEF's theory.



fairgeek said:


> And if a question like "staying true to yourself" can really be asked on this kind of test? presumably it tests Fi, while Ti and Ni users may also think they are being true to themselves.


I think that's an excellent example of the kind of ambiguity that causes the boundaries between types to haze. A lot of Fi descriptions talk about "authenticity" and "being true to oneself," but why would something like Si (which according to some descriptions stays true to preconceived sensations and perceptions), or Ti (which according to some descriptions (I'll just abbreviate that to WATSD) stays true to its internal, logically derived frameworks about how the world works), or Ni (WATSD stays true to its way of perceiving of the world) not be authentic or being true to itself? I could even apply the Ni law in a broad sense and say that everybody stays true to themselves because they perceive the world in a way that would be true to themselves. You could argue that I'm deriving the wrong meaning out of the traits Fi stands for, it's not like these things are universalized on a conceptual level, either. It's a big reason why people argue about what is a function and what isn't a function all the time and never truly agree with one another.

I welcome the suggestion that my test should take behaviors under stress into account, but I don't really want to do any of the following: 1) overcomplicate the test 2) encourage people to derive more meaning from the test than really exists or 3) deviate too far from distinguish between modes of behavior that I don't feel can be accurately distinguished by a test taker. I do want to thank you for bringing this to my attention—I'm actually very glad you're asking important questions like these, because I feel like typology just as a domain tends to attract a brand of obscurantism that likes to pretend certain laws of personality simply "exist" and that these laws will simply justify themselves without taking a closer look at what's really going on. There's always something that could be done better, you know?

If there is something I encourage, it would be a face-value approach into acknowledging what does and doesn't define you, regardless of the generalized frameworks people come up with, and I like to think that my test, through giving you three different results based on different methods of scoring your responses, encourages seeing typology in a light that is flexible and malleable rather than fixed and universal.


----------



## fairgeek

Below I present my novel of musings on the topic.... 

First of all, my apologies for not writing this in a better format last night and not congratulating you on creating a thorough test. It certainly far exceeds my understanding of these systems, and although we can nitpick on the internet all we want and create wishful idealistic scenarios of the perfect test, it doesn’t equate to knowledge and actuation. Thank you for taking the time to address my questions and for creating this test! I wish I had written my initial response more thoroughly, but was mostly just seeking more information on test after taking it, prompting me to login and reactivate my old account here.



vemurea said:


> I do want to thank you for bringing this to my attention—I'm actually very glad you're asking important questions like these, because I feel like typology just as a domain tends to attract a brand of obscurantism that likes to pretend certain laws of personality simply "exist" and that these laws will simply justify themselves without taking a closer look at what's really going on. There's always something that could be done better, you know?
> 
> 
> If there is something I encourage, it would be a face-value approach into acknowledging what does and doesn't define you, regardless of the generalized frameworks people come up with, and I like to think that my test, through giving you three different results based on different methods of scoring your responses, encourages seeing typology in a light that is flexible and malleable rather than fixed and universal.


I agree with you that personality types are dynamic, and that we often take a very rigid approach to scoring and interpreting personality tests. I think many systems like enneagram try to push that types are static and even genetically-based (I have had people confront me on enneagram sites before when I explained that as a child in all honesty I was a 5, but now I am a 7. They disagree with me tremendously, despite general psychology acknowledging that children do not have fully developed, set personalities. These groups push the mantra that if you are a type as a child, you must always remain that type). 

I will preface by saying I am not a psychologist, so my knowledge of this is limited and only based on my mother being one (who disliked personality tests and really pushes for the dynamic interpretation since she works with cognitive behavior therapy), my reading of her DSM manuals as a child when I was bored, and my own understanding or misunderstanding of Jungian + mbti functions. But, from what we understand about people in a general sense from psychology, they do adapt and change to situations and contexts, and behaviors may form different patterns based on priorities as they go through life. Whether we can accurately match this to MBTI or not is maybe what we should be asking, since delving into functions begins to explore the connections between the functions as behaviors and more than just preferences.



> I welcome the suggestion that my test should take behaviors under stress into account, but I don't really want to do any of the following: 1) overcomplicate the test 2) encourage people to derive more meaning from the test than really exists or 3) deviate too far from distinguish between modes of behavior that I don't feel can be accurately distinguished by a test taker


I understand how much this would over-complicate tests, and I have seen a few that have tried and failed in incorporating it. It wasn’t IDR or Keys2Cognition, but another I can’t recall the name of. But I disagree that it can’t be just as accurately or inaccurately distinguished by a test taker as any other functions, as the whole of the test presumes that level of understanding of your own persona as well as a correct interpretation of the questions. I would think that any person able to answer the questions on the test is able to also answer if they are currently under stress, what form of stress that is, how much more stress that is than typically in their lives and how they react under stress.

For instance, I do know that both myself and my ENTP friend react similarly in stress: we become reclusive, frustrated, whiny, difficult. We can get stuck on small details and become overly self-critical. He is a great mirror for me to see myself, since I think he fits the stereotype better. My INFP ex, with leading Fi, becomes much more cold and uncaring, mean, and can completely dismiss people from his life, becoming aloof and objective in his depression, while as an artist he normally functions by examining his emotions in a healthy way that expresses them regularly. He is a great example of an INFP and extremely introverted. I cannot really compare other friends and exes as they are not good examples of their types or I have not seen them under real stress.

Going off these examples, I do think a question asking them how stressed they are, a few word-matching questions to describe what would fit the stress reaction coupled with a rating of how stressed they are to be used as a factor, could be calculated. If someone is emotional under stress, it could be subtracted from the Fi score. If they have become cold and reclusive, it would be subtracted from Ti, in the case of the above. Of course it then would not cover loops with the inferior function instead…



> The truth is that I _can't_ unless there really is a way to differentiate these on a conscious level. The same law applies to the functions—do I have a tertiary preference for Fi (INTJ), or an inferior preference for Fe (INTP)? Do I have a preference for Te (ESTJ) or is it just Se-Ti mimicking Te (ESTP)? Am I as cool as I am because of a preference for Ni-Te (INTJ) or is it just a Ti-Ni loop (ISTP)? Is it Fi (ENFP) or just a shadow preference that comes up when I'm stressed (ENTP)?


I used to often question the reliability of some of these complex function definitions. I still do. I called it bogus back then, but in some ways these explanations are. Loops, being stuck in your weakest function during stress, shadow functions… all seem to just be us explaining away holes in the personality theory. When we look at it more closely, of course each type has to have functions that provide the basic needs: a way to be logical, a way to react emotionally, a way to ideate, a way to interact with society/the environment. Perhaps I am using too broad of definitions here, but we often forget that all types have all 8 functions, and no one can truly objectively ascertain which they are using in what order. While the most used 2 or 3 functions are often clear to people, they don’t always equate to a type. Someone might score high on both Ne and Ni as I and others have, as well as Fi and Ti ranking high. Then it becomes a matter of treating it either mathematically or with some kind of tie-breaker.

I am not sure how you are implementing that, and I have seen the forementioned too-complicated test I can’t remember the name of having some kind of dynamic system, but it was done poorly in their case. In order to really examine this we would have to determined if they are in a loop, or stuck in their shadow under stress.



> A test should only return to you what you give to it, otherwise it would be incorrect in assuming that something exists that may or may not really exist. Ironically, a lot of typology is based around that kind of notion: just because I score E, N, F, and P on the official MBTI doesn't necessarily mean that I best correspond to the Ne-Fi-Te-Si archetype, and relating to a certain function type that isn't the type I scored doesn't necessarily mean the type I scored was the wrong type. Why would that be? Because they're two different things, or arguably, so many different things.
> 
> I want to tie it all together into one much bigger argument: each source for the cognitive functions has a completely different interpretation of what they mean, and there is nothing that centralizes what's "correct" and what "isn't correct." Some editions of the cognitive functions account for four functions, some eight functions, some shadow functions, some loops, some stress behaviors, some inferior blind-spots, some function axes, some mental disorders, and so on... there isn't a single theory I could call "the cognitive functions," but I could point toward disparate sources with their own interpretations of "the cognitive functions" and say that's ABC's theory or that's DEF's theory.
> 
> I think that's an excellent example of the kind of ambiguity that causes the boundaries between types to haze. A lot of Fi descriptions talk about "authenticity" and "being true to oneself," but why would something like Si (which according to some descriptions stays true to preconceived sensations and perceptions), or Ti (which according to some descriptions (I'll just abbreviate that to WATSD) stays true to its internal, logically derived frameworks about how the world works), or Ni (WATSD stays true to its way of perceiving of the world) not be authentic or being true to itself? I could even apply the Ni law in a broad sense and say that everybody stays true to themselves because they perceive the world in a way that would be true to themselves. You could argue that I'm deriving the wrong meaning out of the traits Fi stands for, it's not like these things are universalized on a conceptual level, either. It's a big reason why people argue about what is a function and what isn't a function all the time and never truly agree with one another.


I do think these different descriptions of functions is where the understanding of them becomes muddied. The typology world has not agreed on some standard definitions of what comprises each function, even though we have come to some general consensus of stereotypes for each type, which aren’t always true. When we try to use these function definitions though, we do need to either take single word approaches to remove some of the subjective nature (similar minds has experimented with this) or perhaps try to explain scenarios to really get a picture of someone’s cognitive processes. If we don’t do that, are we really being true to the concept of functions as a depiction of these proceses? Or are we only upholding stereotypes?

Personally, I would have difficulty answering some of the more ambiguous questions on these tests. It is of course no fault of your’s, as these are the bullet points used to describe functions, and I am sure you spent a lot of time compiling those. However, using the case of ”staying true to yourself” as an example, if you are testing for Fi, I think some of this ambiguity could be removed by asking ”do you stay true to your inner feelings and sense of what is right and good?” if someone were to ask me that, of course I would say no. And although I know this question is about Fi, I am still going to answer with its current wording that I stay true to myself, as to me that would mean staying my course with continuing with crazy ideas or late night internet arguments despite the disaproval of the ESTJ I am dating… But it isn’t an emotional true-to-myself, and without the question specifying, it does become difficult.

There were a few more examples, and to not be the kid who writes in the margins of the multiple choice test (I always was) explaining under what conditions the teacher is wrong, I won’t go through the others now. I do know that most of them are supposed to be stereotypes of functions. I think after a certain understanding of the functions is reached, no test can provide a truly accurate answer as a person will either be always trying to find the questions pretaining to their preferred type and answering in a biased manner, or they will lack the nuance to describe their current situation. I think part of this happens when you delve into motivations behind behaviors and functions. Someone may strive for uniqueness but not do so out of their feelings, and instead focus on amusing others or a social experiment. Then again, this is not so much of a problem but will slighlty alter scores and could add up without careful phrasing.

How true are these stereotypes really and how much should we factor in motivations as well as other functions that can mirror or mimic what is being tested? Is there even a way to do this? I remember a very long excel sheet based test posted either here or in another forum nearly a decade ago. It was more than several hundred questions long. I do not remember the details of it, but I think it did achieve this to an extent.



> I really, really like the last question you ask because it really does bring everything into greater perspective. _Is_ there a way to differentiate the behavior we develop and the behavior we learn?
> 
> I'm not really sure. I could straight up ask on the test, perhaps, if you feel that you agree or disagree with a statement on the test because you feel like it's a "natural preference" or a "learned preference," and then the test no longer carries the burden of having to assume that everything is a "natural preference."
> 
> I mentioned before that the test assumes everything inputted into the algorithm accounts for a "natural preference," but this is technically incorrect if the function type it returns to you doesn't take into account the scores of all the functions; having created the algorithm for the test, I can tell you that this is true: the test will only take a single equation that takes four functions at a time and compare the sixteen different values it gets to finally push out a type.
> 
> In other words, the test doesn't _really_ assume that everything is a "natural preference," but instead churns out a type based on your conscious agreement or disagreement with the statements it gives you. If it did assume every conscious decision made on the test was a "natural preference," then the test would simply not be accounting for real preferences you have in giving you your type. And that wouldn't be a very good thing, would it?


I think the question here is whether real preferences can be determined by these tests. We have already concluded that they are based on preferences, are subjective, and that the answers can change in a dynamic way depending on the interpretation in context.

If preferences can be determined by the test in a way that negates bias when individuals lean towards certain functions they think defines their type, then it would indicate these natural preferences. But people are likely able to identify at least some of the stereotypes, and answer accordingly. 

When they actively try to counter this bias, as I have been trying to do recently, it results in someone answering based not on preferences but on overall behavior. Without phrasing the question in a way that asks how I prefer to be or how I normally interact, I am just as likely to answer a loaded question about whether I am whiny or not based on the 5 minutes prior when I had a headache and my boyfriend called me whiny, rather than whether this is typical behavior for me. Some tests state it clearly before one begins to answer based on your ideal preference for how you behave normally, others do it in the question themselves. These days I have seen very few function tests doing either. But I am answering accurately based on how my behavior was at that moment ”am I whiny? Someone just said I was. I will say I am,” despite knowing that it is Fi.

This isn’t as complex as dealing with something like Te vs. Ti though. With the stereotyped wording of the Te function, anything testing for it would likely make it nearly impossible for any Ti-dominant/secondary individuals in research to score as their type. It assumes the answer is a natural cognitive preference while the question asks about a behavior or action. Behaviors are not necessarily tied to a precise cognitive function, and cannot be taken as a manifestation of the internal processes on their own. Many of the processes as I am sure you know, are subconscious or stay entirely internal, only imparting passing thoughts and concerns. 

I will always select on these tests that I use outside sources in debates, although I know I have my own system and explanation for things internally. It is learned, but am I using Te to process information? Or am I using it to communicate with the outside world in a way that effectively relates my thoughts? Do I compare these thoughts to my internal systems/knowledge first, or do I compare them to these known standards and sources favoring being objective and using a method of validation? That is the question that should be posed, and in that case I know I compare to what I already know first (which can be a compilation of sources, actually, that I have drawn connections between) and find patterns. But in an argument? I will use sources, if I can. 

I do think this kind of learned behavior can be differentiated on a test, as I said, through wording the questions to avoid ambiguity, or answers that interpret the question in relation to their behaviors/actions/work. This means deviating from the wording of the function stereotypes and applying that. Otherwise, people will answer based on behavior, which can be learned, versus preferences, which can be surpressed.



> So in a way, we're kind of assuming here that the test is dealing with natural preferences when it's not really part of the picture. We can't assume that the function types it outputs are based on any specific type of preference other than "conscious preference."
> 
> Here is where it might be a little bit hard to swallow: the cognitive functions don't really know how to distinguish natural, learned, or stressed preferences in a viable way, because everything kind of overlaps when it comes back to the one level we can absolutely relate to these things on—the conscious level. Is my preference for liking strawberries over grapes natural or learned? Does that change when I'm under stress? Truth be told, I don't really know, and I feel like it's not really important to know. The important part lies simply in knowing that I _do_, in fact, prefer strawberries over grapes.


I agree that knowing your own preferences are what matters the most in these cases (being true and honest to yourself, we could say ). Perhaps we know which thing we prefer, but can’t categorize how much these preferences change under stress. However, ideally preferences themselves also won’t change: stress is not typically preferred. Anything done under stress will just be behaviors, temporary manifestations. The same applies to learned behaviors and loops: even long-lasting ones will not be a preferred persona. I have also heard the 4 functions described as the conscious preference and the 4 shadows as the subconscious although I am not sure I agree with that.

I do think that while the functions themselves don’t distinguish between learned, stressed and natural processes, they can be tested for in ways to separate them from behaviors. It can be stressed that the test is examining someone’s unstressed, natural preferences. ”I prefer to be ….”

One issue is that these tests do not accomodate that each function takes on different roles depending on its location in the stack and its interaction with surrounding functions. While Ne in ENTP and INTP might be mostly similar, it will already differ from that of an INFP, and certainly differs from that of an ESTJ… nevermind an ISFJ. Asking questions about Ne that define it as brainstorming novel ideas would not result in the ESTJ I date selecting it as a preference, although he would consider himself to come up with practical solutions swiftly. However, even this question would be flawed in asking about a behavioral manifestation as opposed to a preferred process. 
So that is my next question: Is there any way to truly account for the different depictions of the same function across different types? Did you do this? 

I think to truly have a comprehensive test we need to factor that in, although I am sure it would become complex when we consider how functions change with development. An ENTP with underdeveloped Si will be rebellious, but once it is developed may long for the white picket fence. Will they admit that on a test? Who knows. Testing for the maturity level of the different functions and the developmental stage of the individual is a whole nother can of worms I suppose…



> But to compare this directly to something typology-related, we can try something like the Enneagram: a blind-spot for self-preservation is often characterized with the same traits that an unhealthy dominant preference for self-preservation is characterized by. How could I distinguish sp/so from unhealthy so/sx?



But that being said, I didn’t address the enneagram statement: I think there will be some issues and conflicts where statements about things such as seeking novel experiences get tied to Se, but of course then any enneagram 7 is going to lean towards types with Se in their stack, despite ENTP being included as stereotypically a 7. Nevermind the sp/sx/so preferences influencing outcomes, but there clearly is a lot that goes into personality determination that is not incorporated in MBTI. Perhaps one way to address this is to be specific, to address the thought process as opposed to the actions taken, and to on some level question the underlying motivations, whether or not we think that the test taker can accurately determine this. 

Then again, if I knew all of this I would have a PhD in Psychology, and I probably would think personality theory was bunk like my mom does. I don’t, I am an engineer, and it isn’t really my field so much as an interesting topic. Thanks for entertaining and answering my questions!



> …I feel like you mean to make more out of the test than it really tells you. Similarminds and keys2cognition suffer from the same problem, but I would guess that you're more okay with it because the definitions and algorithms they use return a type that you believe you are.


Everything will be influenced by bias in the end. It is subjective in nature, when we speak of perceptions. But as you have stated, it is meant to test preferences. And that includes some bias in the type someone thinks they are/prefers being. The problem comes with whether we accurately understand those types and processes, and have the correct perception of what we prefer to begin with. But if we do, and we do not reach the computed type that we do prefer, are these function tests truly factoring in our internal functional preferences correctly, or just assuming a type based on calculation from a set of self-described behaviors? You did stress that individuals should meet mbti practitioners face-to-face for a test, but I would still question that method over self-study, as many interactions can be contrived, just as an introvert can be social and pleasant for work. Is any method actually accurate enough in and of itself to be definitive? Or can we only rely on them for instances where people are unstressed, fitting neatly in stereotypes, and answering with a lack of bias + awareness of their actual cognitive patterns? Isn't that maybe too much to ask?


----------



## kiribek

Well... results are consistent with every other test I take out there, so can't say it's adding anything worthy to my understanding of my possible type.


----------



## vemurea

fairgeek said:


> Below I present my novel of musings on the topic....
> 
> First of all, my apologies for not writing this in a better format last night and not congratulating you on creating a thorough test. It certainly far exceeds my understanding of these systems, and although we can nitpick on the internet all we want and create wishful idealistic scenarios of the perfect test, it doesn’t equate to knowledge and actuation. Thank you for taking the time to address my questions and for creating this test! I wish I had written my initial response more thoroughly, but was mostly just seeking more information on test after taking it, prompting me to login and reactivate my old account here.


Oh, no worries! I really appreciate your comments, hahaha. Your response is very thoughtful, and I'll try my best to address your other questions.

I _do_ once again want to focus on a theme here, and I guess it would best be described as something akin to "rejection," or maybe just "skepticism." I like this quote a lot:



fairgeek said:


> The typology world has not agreed on some standard definitions of what comprises each function, even though we have come to some general consensus of stereotypes for each type, which aren’t always true. When we try to use these function definitions though, we do need to either take single word approaches to remove some of the subjective nature (similar minds has experimented with this) or perhaps try to explain scenarios to really get a picture of someone’s cognitive processes. If we don’t do that, are we really being true to the concept of functions as a depiction of these proceses? Or are we only upholding stereotypes?


You describe your thoughts very transparently here, and that's honestly _so_ refreshing to see. I agree that we should definitely _clarify_ concepts in unambiguous language so that we can certainly say that we're "translating" or understanding the concepts in a manner that is true in intention. Your take on correcting the Fi question is an excellent way to do that.

And to bring it back to that broader picture, I'll throw in a blanket statement and say that most interpretations of the functions, be they tests, descriptions or word of mouth, tend to use ambiguous language that can be interpreted in many different ways. Even the official MBTI, the subject of numerous academic studies, does this when it asks you to choose between a pair of words that simply "appeals to you more," then going on to tell you to focus on meaning rather than look or sound.

I'll requote you now:


fairgeek said:


> …or perhaps try to explain scenarios to really get a picture of someone’s cognitive processes. If we don’t do that, are we really being true to the concept of functions as a depiction of these proceses? Or are we only upholding stereotypes?


This is honestly the big catch in function-centric typology: there kind of isn't really a "concept of the functions" that exists in a pure form that isn't corrupted by "stereotyping." We _don't actually know how our brains work_, and I am personally extremely strongly against the notion that the cognitive functions aptly describe cognitive processes. I really think a form like the NEO-PI-R (i.e. Big 5), which deals with very literal preferences in behavior, isn't all too different from describing cognitive processes than a function description that focuses on behavioral preferences.

Quoting personalityjunkie on Se:
_"While all personality types rely on vision for everyday functioning, Se types seem especially attuned to visual input. This is why they (SPs) tend to be more concerned about their appearance, as well as appearances in general, than Si types (SJs) are. SPs seek pleasure and Se takes great pleasure in perceiving both physical beauty and sensory novelty. Their penchant for sensory novelty is why SPs are commonly described as thrill-seekers or hedonists. Se is also engaged by physical action. SPs love perceiving and physically responding to environmental cues. This why they often take up work as first responders, athletes, mechanics, chefs, and the like."_

Some items from the NEO-PI-R inventory:
_Occasionally I act first and think later.
I often crave excitement.
I have trouble resisting my cravings.
I keep a cool head in emergencies.
I'm attracted to bright colours and fancy styles.
Sometimes I do things on impulse that I later regret._

Not all too different, is it? I think you'd get a handful of people that would argue that these items being present on the Big 5 is an indicator that Se actually _exists_ as a literal description of neurological preferences, but that entails that what describes Se can aptly be clumped together and given exclusively to "people who have it in their stack." 

I guess the big question I want you to ask is what truly differentiates somebody who exhibits traits that you can attribute to Se but denies that they are connected to Se via the preferences ordained by their function stack from somebody who exhibits exactly the same behavior but claims that Se _is_ in fact part of their cognitive function stack.



fairgeek said:


> I used to often question the reliability of some of these complex function definitions. I still do. I called it bogus back then, but in some ways these explanations are. Loops, being stuck in your weakest function during stress, shadow functions… all seem to just be us explaining away holes in the personality theory. When we look at it more closely, of course each type has to have functions that provide the basic needs: a way to be logical, a way to react emotionally, a way to ideate, a way to interact with society/the environment. Perhaps I am using too broad of definitions here, but we often forget that all types have all 8 functions, and no one can truly objectively ascertain which they are using in what order. While the most used 2 or 3 functions are often clear to people, they don’t always equate to a type. Someone might score high on both Ne and Ni as I and others have, as well as Fi and Ti ranking high. Then it becomes a matter of treating it either mathematically or with some kind of tie-breaker.


I like your looser approach to this, but I'd love if, as an exercise, you took it a step further and questioned your own… window of reasonability? I think when I was very into the cognitive functions some three or so years ago, I distinguished—by my own reasoning—what seemed absurd and what seemed reasonable. But I think the very construction of even singular cognitive functions is irreasonable, in that they're identifiable based on how we relate to the traits they describe, but we rarely isolate their given traits and look at what exactly we're relating to in these descriptions and why we are relating to them. It seems counterproductive to me to put traits together and decide if I _essentially_ relate to a subjective whole the traits try to describe under the guise that it is somehow "cognitive" and "pure," while I can more accurately describe myself by looking at the bits and pieces I relate to in a function and identify, perhaps, a more accurate whole of personality that I embody.

Requote:


fairgeek said:


> When we look at it more closely, of course each type has to have functions that provide the basic needs: a way to be logical, a way to react emotionally, a way to ideate, a way to interact with society/the environment.


This may just be one of those core assumptions that holds the theory together for you; I would maybe ask this: why are the basic needs necessarily constrained to being logical, emotional, ideate, and interact? How can we say for sure this covers the core of personality? How do we know that the way that they are distinguished is a genuine delineation that exists in each of our brains?



fairgeek said:


> For instance, I do know that both myself and my ENTP friend react similarly in stress: we become reclusive, frustrated, whiny, difficult. We can get stuck on small details and become overly self-critical. He is a great mirror for me to see myself, since I think he fits the stereotype better. My INFP ex, with leading Fi, becomes much more cold and uncaring, mean, and can completely dismiss people from his life, becoming aloof and objective in his depression, while as an artist he normally functions by examining his emotions in a healthy way that expresses them regularly. He is a great example of an INFP and extremely introverted. I cannot really compare other friends and exes as they are not good examples of their types or I have not seen them under real stress.


I know you kind of conflate your stressed tendencies with Si, and your those of your ex's with Te, but I would maybe look at it again in a more isolated way where the conflation doesn't have to be necessary. I'll use myself as an example; in terms of functions, I can't really pinpoint my type because I exhibit traits from functions that don't really fit into a function stack too well. Maybe ENTP would be closest if I stuck to the Ne-Ti-Fe-Si model. Under stress, which usually happens when a situation truly leaves my control, I begin thinking in terms of the problems I'm facing and the solutions necessary to remedy them. I drop social graces and take action with little consideration of anything but solving my problem. _Maybe_ we could see this as apt reasoning for "inferior Te," but it creates a lot of problems with the rest of the stack, where I don't really relate to dominant Fi, auxiliary Te, introversion, or anything else function-based INFP stands for. 

I think with a model like the cognitive functions, it's easy to develop a tendency to see the theory as preceding reality, which I feel can have real-world consequences regardless of how accurate-to-reality we perceive these theories to be.



fairgeek said:


> I have also heard the 4 functions described as the conscious preference and the 4 shadows as the subconscious although I am not sure I agree with that.


I _love_ this sentence because it represents everything to do with questioning typological dogma. I think you're very justified in not agreeing with that because there isn't anything substantial to actually suggest that the claim is true. 



fairgeek said:


> One issue is that these tests do not accomodate that each function takes on different roles depending on its location in the stack and its interaction with surrounding functions. While Ne in ENTP and INTP might be mostly similar, it will already differ from that of an INFP, and certainly differs from that of an ESTJ… nevermind an ISFJ. Asking questions about Ne that define it as brainstorming novel ideas would not result in the ESTJ I date selecting it as a preference, although he would consider himself to come up with practical solutions swiftly. However, even this question would be flawed in asking about a behavioral manifestation as opposed to a preferred process.
> So that is my next question: Is there any way to truly account for the different depictions of the same function across different types? Did you do this?


I did not do this, and I kind of think it isn't really possible to do unless I came up with sixteen different manifestations of a certain function at work, and you'd end up with a thousand-or-so question long test that works with _archetypes_ as opposed to the separate functions. I think _archetypes_ might be at the root of the stereotypes you mention, where certain types are more able to do certain tasks simply because they are a certain type whose behavior must be differentiated from another type. These are generally formed from anecdotal evidence of self-typed people and the way they act, and it's really another view down reducing the extent of personality by unnecessarily creating boundaries for musts and must-nots.

I think you'd be better off just reading descriptions of archetypes at that point, since the functions aren't really separable aspects of these types but more so just artificial blobs that look like "building blocks" only in name.



fairgeek said:


> An ENTP with underdeveloped Si will be rebellious, but once it is developed may long for the white picket fence. Will they admit that on a test? Who knows. Testing for the maturity level of the different functions and the developmental stage of the individual is a whole nother can of worms I suppose…


Tee hee... fun fact, William Harold Grant, the creator of the function stack that gets thrown around today, really only meant to devise a model of human development. I think Brownsword was the one who butchered it into something else, but it's been a long time since I skimmed their books.



fairgeek said:


> But that being said, I didn’t address the enneagram statement: I think there will be some issues and conflicts where statements about things such as seeking novel experiences get tied to Se, but of course then any enneagram 7 is going to lean towards types with Se in their stack, despite ENTP being included as stereotypically a 7. Nevermind the sp/sx/so preferences influencing outcomes, but there clearly is a lot that goes into personality determination that is not incorporated in MBTI. Perhaps one way to address this is to be specific, to address the thought process as opposed to the actions taken, and to on some level question the underlying motivations, whether or not we think that the test taker can accurately determine this.


Excellent point! Honestly, the best way to look at it is like typology trying to frame people in different ways. Se being a lot like 7 just means that 7 and Se tackle very similar domains of personality.



fairgeek said:


> Everything will be influenced by bias in the end. It is subjective in nature, when we speak of perceptions. But as you have stated, it is meant to test preferences. And that includes some bias in the type someone thinks they are/prefers being. The problem comes with whether we accurately understand those types and processes, and have the correct perception of what we prefer to begin with. But if we do, and we do not reach the computed type that we do prefer, are these function tests truly factoring in our internal functional preferences correctly, or just assuming a type based on calculation from a set of self-described behaviors? You did stress that individuals should meet mbti practitioners face-to-face for a test, but I would still question that method over self-study, as many interactions can be contrived, just as an introvert can be social and pleasant for work. Is any method actually accurate enough in and of itself to be definitive? Or can we only rely on them for instances where people are unstressed, fitting neatly in stereotypes, and answering with a lack of bias + awareness of their actual cognitive patterns? Isn't that maybe too much to ask?


"But if we do, and we do not reach the computed type that we do prefer, are these function tests truly factoring in our internal functional preferences correctly, or just assuming a type based on calculation from a set of self-described behaviors?" <-- It's the latter, and I think all typology deals with the latter, in a sense. I don't think we can safely assume that a construct like the functions quite literally exists in the brain, and neuroscience tends to stray away from that idea. But I'll ignore "functional" in the wording for a second and just assume that you're just referring to any essence of personality; I think it's a very complicated matter when we start talking about how our perceptions of behavior affect the impetuses driving them. It's something that I think is far too individuated for typology to accurately cover, and it's like genuine soul-searching in that sense. I've never really been too interested in knowing things like that for myself, but I can see why one would be drawn to understanding it. Typology markets itself as understanding it, but it's dreadfully superficial. I wish we knew more about the brain—I really do.



fairgeek said:


> Then again, if I knew all of this I would have a PhD in Psychology, and I probably would think personality theory was bunk like my mom does. I don’t, I am an engineer, and it isn’t really my field so much as an interesting topic. Thanks for entertaining and answering my questions!


Hahaha, it's exactly the same thing for me. I have a lot of fun with hocus-pocusy theoretical things like personality theories but I'm also in your field, albeit still studying.


----------



## contradictionary

Okay @vemurea , i played along.

Below is my result, could you please tell me what can you infer from the numbers?











_Sent sans PC_


----------



## Wisteria

I'm not sure if you can see that so I will paste my score;



> Ne (extraverted intuition)	7.7
> Ni (introverted intuition)	20.8
> Se (extraverted sensing)	14
> Si (introverted sensing)	29.8
> Te (extraverted thinking)	29
> Ti (introverted thinking)	22
> Fe (extraverted feeling)	13
> Fi (introverted feeling)	32
> 
> grant-brownsword function type	ISTJ
> axis-based function type	INFP
> most likely myers-briggs type	ISFJ
> 
> clear I preference
> strong S preference
> undifferentiated
> strong J preference


My score seems pretty strange, with Fe, Se and Ti being the lowest, and Te, Fi and Si being the highest. I scored lowest on Ne which is probably why I got the ISFJ result. 

The problem I noticed with the Ne questions was that it was heavily focused on communication ("I communicate ideas in similes and metaphors") which is more than simply Ne. Into this statement you have brought communication _and_ intuitive associations into one statement about one type of cognitive process.

Also don't get what the Axis based type is about, which for me was INFP...even though my Se score was higher than Ne. I know it's just a test and it's hard to get precise and consistent results with all the answers. 

Although I don't use the cogntive functions theory personally, I thought it was accurate according to the universal definitions of cognitive functions and ISFJ is actually the result I got from the MBTI assessment, which is interesting.

I can't critique how accurate the definitions are in the test because I don't agree with the cogntive function definitions in general, therefore it seemed unfair to criticise this test for it.


----------



## contradictionary

contradictionary said:


> Okay @*vemurea* , i played along.
> 
> Below is my result, could you please tell me what can you infer from the numbers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Sent sans PC_


I feel like an outlier here. Am i a Ni-ish INTP or a Ti-ish INTJ? :frustrating: Then I found it also fail to capture my ambiversion tendency.

Lastly, it has brought to my attention that after several random sampling in this thread the total value lies between 150-200. But mine is 230... how come, @vemurea :exterminate:


----------



## StinkyBambi

oh dear, this all seems very complex!


----------



## Fru2

Wisteria said:


> View attachment 814259
> 
> 
> I'm not sure if you can see that so I will paste my score;
> 
> 
> 
> My score seems pretty strange, with Fe, Se and Ti being the lowest, and Te, Fi and Si being the highest. I scored lowest on Ne which is probably why I got the ISFJ result.
> 
> The problem I noticed with the Ne questions was that it was heavily focused on communication ("I communicate ideas in similes and metaphors") which is more than simply Ne. Into this statement you have brought communication _and_ intuitive associations into one statement about one type of cognitive process.
> 
> Also don't get what the Axis based type is about, which for me was INFP...even though my Se score was higher than Ne. I know it's just a test and it's hard to get precise and consistent results with all the answers.
> 
> Although I don't use the cogntive functions theory personally, I thought it was accurate according to the universal definitions of cognitive functions and ISFJ is actually the result I got from the MBTI assessment, which is interesting.
> 
> I can't critique how accurate the definitions are in the test because I don't agree with the cogntive function definitions in general, therefore it seemed unfair to criticise this test for it.


I think you might be ISTJ, based on your results as well as your way of writing. I know that some ISTJs miht come off as cold and calculating, but their feelings run deep. What I see is Si-Te-Fi-Ne with a very developed Fi. Maybe you're at the Fi development stage, that might explain things. And don't think that ISTJs can't be feminine, look at Natalie Portman and Emma Watson.


----------



## Ocean Helm

I posted this elsewhere but the discussion got derailed. The polarity between my top 4 and bottom 4 is interesting, especially considering I have gotten Te as my highest on the Nardi test but it still gave me INFP for the function side. I feel like I'm bound to always get INFP or INTJ on function tests, sometimes INTP with the rare ENxP. The MBTI part was really accurate too, although maybe working from the perceiving functions it could have overestimated my P preference.

What would this mean to y'all function lovers?


----------



## Ode to Trees

*Ne (extraverted intuition) 32
Ni (introverted intuition) 34.6
Se (extraverted sensing) 18
Si (introverted sensing) 19.8
Te (extraverted thinking) 13
Ti (introverted thinking) 25
Fe (extraverted feeling) 21
Fi (introverted feeling) 29

*grant-brownsword function type* INFP
*axis-based function type* INFJ
*most likely myers-briggs *type INFP

e n f p
18.5 97.2 77.9 122
95.2 3.6 22.1 -19.6
i s t j

strong I preference
clear N preference
clear F preference
clear P preference

*

On these cognitive tests, I almost always score close on Ne and Ni functions, score close on Te and Ti functions (except on this one), very low Se scores, not so high Si scores, and Fi and Fe scores are also close.

I took a lot of research method classes some of which are experimental. What most of these test struggle with is construct validity not reliability as much since one might have experience consistent retesting with these (if this is not the case then you are dealing with extraneous variables such as mood, occupation, training, and so on). Also, I would include more questions to distinguish functions. Few questions on Ti and Te will not do the trick. I took business statistics class this semester, and I am currently taking a business calculus course. I have noticed that I do use Ti more than I thought which was obvious in some of the questions on this test and also rely on Te - building upon already existing knowledge and existing external systems - e.g applying a formula to a new situation (Te-Ne). There is no way that Te score is that low.


----------



## Eren Jaegerbomb

Nyeeeeeehhhh

Ne 47.1 
Ni 22.6 
Si 26 
Se 19 
Ti 27 
Te 25 
Fe 22 
Fi 31

Grant brownsword function type ENFP
Axis based function type ENFP
Most likely Myers-Briggs type INFP

Slight I preference
Strong N Preference
Slight F preference
Moderate P preference

E 41.5 N 90.7 F 60.4 P 71.8 

I 68.1 S 11.5 T 45.5 J 35.9

Comments:
Fe and Se are officially kicked out of the club. But at least Fe got past 20. Se couldn't even make the cut. Se is officially on my shit-wish-list. No presents for you this year buddy.


View attachment 814369


----------



## xVladdy

Ne (extraverted intuition)	36
Ni (introverted intuition)	32.5
Se (extraverted sensing)	21
Si (introverted sensing)	19.8
Te (extraverted thinking)	19
Ti (introverted thinking)	29
Fe (extraverted feeling)	16
Fi (introverted feeling) 29

grant-brownsword function type	ENFP
axis-based function type ENFP
most likely myers-briggs type INTP

e n f p
23.9	85 8.2 101.8
80.2 25.3 84.6 8.6
i s t j

For some reason, my Fi and Ti had the same score... I just can't tell how. Tbh, it makes no sense, but I guess this is part of the theory?
Somehow, my Fi-Te axis was stronger than Ti-Fe just because I slightly identify more with Fi than Fe.
It's a mess which I don't have the patience to make sense of. But to be perfectly honest, it is near impossible for me to be an F.


----------



## vemurea

contradictionary said:


> Lastly, it has brought to my attention that after several random sampling in this thread the total value lies between 150-200. But mine is 230... how come, @vemurea :exterminate:


This means that you related to more of the statements on the test compared to the average. I know—it feels like such a non-statement, but that's really the only meaning I'd be able to derive from this. As for your test results, refer to this section in the FAQ I write at the bottom of the test:



sakinorva.net said:


> How accurate is the test?
> That really depends on what "accurate" means to you. My test is only meant to take your answers, run the formulas, and give you a result based on those formulas; this test would be 100% accurate solely with regards to that. Whether or not your result will be an accurate reflection of your "function type" or your Myers-Briggs type is up for you to decide.
> 
> But I should stress an important detail: I've received a little bit over 10k responses to date, and I've been able to compare purported Myers-Briggs types on this test with the types received on "raw" Form Q. Unfortunately, crossover data is scarce, and only about a tiny percentage of the slightly-less-than-10k responders (you can take tests more than once) have taken both the raw Form Q test and the function test. There is a slight NP/SJ bias in the margins, so I would seriously consider J for you if you scored "strong/clear N" and "undifferentiated" on J/P, or S if you scored "undifferentiated" and "strong/clear P," etc. But my big problem is that I can't offset the results with numerical addends or subtrahends because the gaps between these results are often relative, not absolute.


----------



## contradictionary

vemurea said:


> This means that you related to more of the statements on the test compared to the average. I know—it feels like such a non-statement, but that's really the only meaning I'd be able to derive from this. As for your test results, refer to this section in the FAQ I write at the bottom of the test:


Is it the subtle way to imply that i'm quite polarized? h: 

Appreciate what you have done. I am not well equipped to put more thoughts on your method, i just found it's useful to get to know more on where i lacking. For example i have work quite hard to improve my Se to better navigate the material world and it shows. Next is to train my Fe, it's the most difficult for me.

_Sent sans PC_


----------



## Kaiku

Ne (extraverted intuition)	15
Ni (introverted intuition)	38.4
Se (extraverted sensing)	14
Si (introverted sensing) 12.1
Te (extraverted thinking)	29
Ti (introverted thinking) 41
Fe (extraverted feeling) 38
Fi (introverted feeling) 17

grant-brownsword function type	INFJ
axis-based function type	ISTP
most likely myers-briggs type	INFJ

strong I preference
clear N preference
unclear F preference
moderate J preference


----------



## The Dude

_Ne (extraverted intuition)	20
Ni (introverted intuition)	15.3
Se (extraverted sensing)	22
Si (introverted sensing)	17.8
Te (extraverted thinking)	19
Ti (introverted thinking)	23
Fe (extraverted feeling)	19
Fi (introverted feeling)	26

grant-brownsword function type	ISFP
axis-based function type	INFP
most likely myers-briggs type	INTP

e	n	f	p
45	79.9	40.8	52.1
49.5	15	55.7	45.6
i	s	t	j


undifferentiated
strong N preference
slight T preference
undifferentiated_

Won't disagree about the MBTI part since I've taken the official test 3x and got IxTP once and INTP twice.


----------



## Ardielley

Ne (extraverted intuition)33Ni (introverted intuition)23.6Se (extraverted sensing)21Si (introverted sensing)28.5Te (extraverted thinking)15Ti (introverted thinking)24Fe (extraverted feeling)25Fi (introverted feeling)29


grant-brownsword function typeINFPaxis-based function typeENTPmost likely myers-briggs typeISFJ


enfp31.451.679.745.272.556.623.456.4istjmoderate I preference undifferentiated clear F preference unclear J preference  

Interesting...

I liked how in-depth the questions were, but a lot of the questions related to Fi seemed too focused on "expression" of values (which I think is more of an Enneagram 4 thing). As a type 9, expressing my values can be very uncomfortable for me depending on who I'm with. While I'm certainly driven by my convictions, I'm sometimes too inhibited to express them.


----------



## Leenbow

I... don't understand this results.
Basically, every Myers-Briggs test i passed out of curiosity always gave me same result - very clear INFP. Here it is also stated below: all preferences are clear. 
And then Brownsword and Axis results both show ENTP.

How should i treat those results? If it should be treated same as Myers-Briggs - then, this part of the test is totally mistaken (i am not extravert, like, at all). I read around 12 pages from the beginning of this discussion and it hadn't become clearer...


----------



## Shrodingers drink

Leenbow said:


> I... don't understand this results.
> Basically, every Myers-Briggs test i passed out of curiosity always gave me same result - very clear INFP. Here it is also stated below: all preferences are clear.
> And then Brownsword and Axis results both show ENTP.
> 
> How should i treat those results? If it should be treated same as Myers-Briggs - then, this part of the test is totally mistaken (i am not extravert, like, at all). I read around 12 pages from the beginning of this discussion and it hadn't become clearer...


I’m guessing Brownsword/Axis is based on you function preference where Ne was you dom function while Ti was one point higher than Fi, hence ENTP, while MBTI is based on the usual dichotomies And showed your clear INFP preference. The problem with the functions test is that it figures out you perception preference and your judgement preference, but It cant really compare the two to determine what is Dom/Aux. It would be more effective if it left off the E/I and said you were NTP/NFP based on TI/Fi being virtually equal.


----------



## Ciphr

The results seem fine to me, I don't like some of the questions though. Some questions are as bad as others I find on the internet like:
*"You frequently have hunches or insights about the future that turn out to be correct."
*
This is something anyone of any type could answer and they wouldn't be wrong.

A better version of this would be:

*"People comment on your ability to root out different perspectives on an issue, your solutions to these issues are often correct."
*
This forces you to actually ask people to give a realistic depiction of you, as well as forces you to provide an example of someone recognizing your type or conflicting with yours. (Maybe an INFP was trying to think "outside of the box" when you thought that wasn't necessary.)


----------



## Ocean Helm

Ciphr said:


> *"People comment on your ability to root out different perspectives on an issue, your solutions to these issues are often correct."
> *
> This forces you to actually ask people to give a realistic depiction of you, as well as forces you to provide an example of someone recognizing your type or conflicting with yours. (Maybe an INFP was trying to think "outside of the box" when you thought that wasn't necessary.)


MBTI is *NOT* about ability.


----------



## lianooch

Nice test, good job. Ni questions are kinda stereotypical though, it seems the author doesn't really understand the Ni Se axis (being an ENFP :smug and how they are used conjointly - not necessarily in the "Se==physical" "Ni==metaphysical" kind of way.

Ti (introverted thinking)	32 
Ni (introverted intuition)	31.4 
Fe (extraverted feeling)	24 
Se (extraverted sensing)	23
Fi (introverted feeling)	22
Si (introverted sensing)	20.8
Ne (extraverted intuition)	20
Te (extraverted thinking)	15


----------



## Ciphr

Ocean Helm said:


> MBTI is *NOT* about ability.


I know that MBTI is not based on ability or behavior, I misspoke. I meant that people generally noticed that you did some actions that translated to how you think cognitively, not basic things everyone does.


----------



## Ocean Helm

lianooch said:


> Nice test, good job. Ni questions are kinda stereotypical though, it seems the author doesn't really understand the Ni Se axis (being an ENFP :smug and how they are used conjointly - not necessarily in the "Se==physical" "Ni==metaphysical" kind of way.


Maybe you can try enlightening the author instead of smugly acting like they don't get something because they're the wrong type.


Ciphr said:


> I know that MBTI is not based on ability or behavior, I misspoke. I meant that people generally noticed that you did some actions that translated to how you think cognitively, not basic things everyone does.


In that case, isn't your proposed "Ni" question actually more like Tx + Sx? Narrowing down and correctness: this seems more like someone who parses through both the logical and factual accuracy of something to filter down ideas which came from somewhere else.

I was under the impression that Intuition creates and connects, rather than "rooting out". What you're describing seems to be the kind of things that those who prioritize Nx often fail to do - the "reality checks". Well at least that's how I understood the theory.


----------



## Hexigoon

Same old, same old.


----------



## tanstaafl28

Ocean Helm said:


> MBTI is *NOT* about ability.


I suspect you're splitting semantic hairs here. MBTI is about our preferred cognitive functions and these definitely lead into to our abilities. Most of us do not master them all, but we become at least competent with all of them.


----------



## Ocean Helm

tanstaafl28 said:


> I suspect you're splitting semantic hairs here. MBTI is about our preferred cognitive functions and these definitely lead into to our abilities. Most of us do not master them all, but we become at least competent with all of them.


No, you can read exactly what I said which is the position of MBTI. You can cite your "neuron up" and think you've got something but here we go, "straight from the horse's mouth" (link):


myersbriggs.org said:


> Stress that *type does not imply* excellence, competence, or *natural ability, only what is preferred*.


What kind of typist bullshit attack is this? I'm "splitting semantic hairs". If my profile didn't say INTP would you say something else? Because I've heard that's basically what INTPs do with no evidence behind it.

I guess MBTI is "splitting semantic hairs too". :bored:


----------



## tanstaafl28

Ocean Helm said:


> No, you can read exactly what I said which is the position of MBTI. You can cite your "neuron up" and think you've got something but here we go, "straight from the horse's mouth" (link):
> 
> What kind of typist bullshit attack is this? I'm "splitting semantic hairs". If my profile didn't say INTP would you say something else? Because I've heard that's basically what INTPs do with no evidence behind it.
> 
> I guess MBTI is "splitting semantic hairs too". :bored:


Raarw! I'm not attacking you, I'm looking to clarify. What does you're being an INTP have to do with anything? 

I didn't disagree, I simply said there's a direct link between our preferred functions and our abilities. I'd daresay that those functions probably inform/predict which abilities we're likely to be better at than others. 

For example, I tend to be really good with language and words, but it took me a great deal of effort to become competent with mathematics because I lack the patience to work a problem step-by-step. I want to jump around and experiment with different possible solutions too much to be locked into a single way of doing something. As you might be aware, this approach just doesn't work too well with math. It wasn't until I learned math for electronics, formal logic, and computer programming, that I began to appreciate the reason for going through the process one way. I'm still not 100% comfortable with it, but I can do it.


----------



## Ocean Helm

tanstaafl28 said:


> I didn't disagree, I simply said there's a direct link between our preferred functions and our abilities. I'd daresay that those functions probably inform/predict which abilities we're likely to be better at than others.


Just from looking at it quickly, the site you linked to had nothing to do with the kind of "cognitive functions" that are usually talked about here, for example "Ne".

As long as you stick to expressing things in terms of being "likely", you're probably safe. The problem is when things extend to using ability to type, or discriminating against people based on type because you predict that they lack in ability. This can easily lead to situations in which you predict someone will be better at something than someone else, even when the reverse is actually true.


> For example, I tend to be really good with language and words, but it took me a great deal of effort to become competent with mathematics because I lack the patience to work a problem step-by-step. I want to jump around and experiment with different possible solutions too much to be locked into a single way of doing something. As you might be aware, this approach just doesn't work too well with math. It wasn't until I learned math for electronics, formal logic, and computer programming, that I began to appreciate the reason for going through the process one way. I'm still not 100% comfortable with it, but I can do it.


A lot of people can probably relate to that (such as myself for most of it, not the language part), although I would guess it would correlate with NP. But the key is just not to expect this to apply to *all* NPs, because it may be wrong.


----------



## tanstaafl28

Ocean Helm said:


> Just from looking at it quickly, the site you linked to had nothing to do with the kind of "cognitive functions" that are usually talked about here, for example "Ne".


You're right, I went with a very broad interpretation because I felt like we were going to need some "wiggle room." Also, the site I linked indicated that, while cognitive function(s) are a process, not an ability, they do inform our abilities. How could they not? 



> As long as you stick to expressing things in terms of being "likely", you're probably safe. The problem is when things extend to using ability to type, or discriminating against people based on type because you predict that they lack in ability. This can easily lead to situations in which you predict someone will be better at something than someone else, even when the reverse is actually true.



I have a tendency to prefer generalities because I don't like getting boxed in. Of course this gets me into trouble at times, but I would never think it should lead to any sort of discrimination. I don't feel my type, or your type, or any type is in any way superior, or inferior because of cognitive function preferences. Everyone excels at something (often more than one thing). Not everyone discovers what that is right away, some may never figure it out in a conscious manner. It doesn't make them any better or worse than anybody else, just different. We tend to hold people who develop their skills/talents/abilities to a very high level up as examples for everyone, but if everyone could do it, would it still be exceptional? 



> A lot of people can probably relate to that (such as myself for most of it, not the language part), although I would guess it would correlate with NP. But the key is just not to expect this to apply to *all* NPs, because it may be wrong.


No an NP can take what they are given and go in a completely different direction. As an example, the famous physicist Richard Feynman was also an ENTP, I'm guessing there's plenty of people out there who got really good at math the way I am with phonetics and language. 

So once again, cognitive functions/MBTI are not an indicator of our abilities, but they do inform them. How we prefer to absorb, integrate, and process, information, thus turning it into useful knowledge, feeds our abilities, do they not? MBTI is therefore a starting point, not an ending point.


----------



## Ocean Helm

tanstaafl28 said:


> You're right, I went with a very broad interpretation because I felt like we were going to need some "wiggle room." Also, the site I linked indicated that, while cognitive function(s) are a process, not an ability, they do inform our abilities. How could they not?


Well I was talking about the "cognitive functions" usually associated with "MBTI". What some other "cognitive functions" idea says about ability just doesn't matter in this context. Unless you're trying to redefine the "Ne" and whatever to take on these meanings, but then you're not talking about MBTI. Going back to where the discussion started, it seems wrong that a test loosely associated with MBTI which gives MBTI type codes should include anything about "ability". It's taking something which promotes inclusivity and tolerance, and turning it into something which promotes feelings of superiority and inferiority which is better covered in the domain of intelligence testing anyway.


> I have a tendency to prefer generalities because I don't like getting boxed in.


Generalities are often what end up boxing people in though. This seems like a counter-intuitive attitude.


> Of course this gets me into trouble at times, but I would never think it should lead to any sort of discrimination.


Well if you associate certain abilities with types, then you are likely to discriminate against ones' opinions if they are from the wrong type. Like for instance shutting out what an ESFJ has to say about math. And I see this happen a lot in this community.


> I don't feel my type, or your type, or any type is in any way superior, or inferior because of cognitive function preferences.


Even if you don't, that doesn't mean that taking a certain stance on this can't promote other people feeling those things.


> Everyone excels at something (often more than one thing). Not everyone discovers what that is right away, some may never figure it out in a conscious manner. It doesn't make them any better or worse than anybody else, just different. We tend to hold people who develop their skills/talents/abilities to a very high level up as examples for everyone, but if everyone could do it, would it still be exceptional?


This sounds like multiple intelligences. Which is a much different thing than what MBTI is supposed to be about. Sure there may be correlations but they usually aren't that strong.


----------



## revolutioninthot




----------



## polyjoylove

How can i do the test?


----------



## Albatross

Well I'm surprised and not surprised, I know Iam more INxP, I feel like an INFP, but somethimes I don't so I can work with having a little T (you have ith: a little tea...) Sorry


----------



## Suntide

polyjoylove said:


> How can i do the test?


Here is the link to the test: https://sakinorva.net/functions


----------



## APBReloaded

Can someone explain these results loosely to me? I haven't done much research into mbti types and functions and what not, and knowing myself a little better is always a plus. I'm also not in the best state of mind right now and my results are probably all over the place because of that, but I tried to think of things as idealistically as possible.


----------



## Mange

Test is garbage


----------



## Mange

I feel like I chose the sensor /introvert options but it told me ENFP and INTP.


----------



## Catandroid

I really like this test and the details it provides.

So INTJ with INFJ subtype I'd say. Almost all the tests I've taken had given me INTJ but the subtype may vary.


----------



## McLovin

Ne (extraverted intuition)	35
Ni (introverted intuition)	37.1
Se (extraverted sensing)	39
Si (introverted sensing)	29.7
Te (extraverted thinking)	31
Ti (introverted thinking)	40
Fe (extraverted feeling)	25
Fi (introverted feeling)	34

grant-brownsword function type	ISTP
axis-based function type	ESFP
myers-briggs function type	INTP
most likely myers-briggs type	INTP

e	n	f	p
52.5	97.1	1.6	110
62.3	24.1	108.2	-3.5
i	s	t	j
undifferentiated
strong N preference
clear T preference
clear P preference


----------



## Engelsstaub

Ne (extraverted intuition)	40.3
Ni (introverted intuition)	38.5
Se (extraverted sensing)	7
Si (introverted sensing)	9.8
Te (extraverted thinking)	20
Ti (introverted thinking)	31
Fe (extraverted feeling)	17
Fi (introverted feeling)	24

grant-brownsword function type	ENTP
axis-based function type	ENTP
myers-briggs function type	INTP
most likely myers-briggs type	INTP

clear I preference
clear N preference
undifferentiated
clear P preference

Hmmm, lots of questions, but kind of known type of them found in other tests.


----------



## xVladdy

Ne (extraverted intuition)	33
Ni (introverted intuition)	26
Se (extraverted sensing)	17
Si (introverted sensing)	16.7
Te (extraverted thinking)	11
Ti (introverted thinking)	28
Fe (extraverted feeling)	13
Fi (introverted feeling) 28

grant-brownsword function type	ENTP
axis-based function type	ENTP
myers-briggs function type	INFP
most likely myers-briggs type	INTP

e	n	f	p
31.3	65.6	13.9	95.2
72.6	44.7	77.4	10.9
i	s	t	j
moderate I preference
slight N preference
clear T preference
clear P preference

I'm more inclined to say I'm an xNTP but, considering how most tests I've done lately say I'm an introvert, I guess it's pretty likely I am an INTP. But I have to say that being alone, even though it doesn't bother me much cause I got used to it, is very boring and often drains me of any ideas. Place me next to someone that I get along with very well and I'm a completely different person. Kinda like Thorium: unless placed next to another metal, it's pretty unreactive.


----------



## slccpy

How can my grant-brownsword function type be completely different to myers-briggs function type ENFP-INTJ? I'm so confused about my test results I wasn't expecting this at all.

Ne (extraverted intuition)	32.7
Ni (introverted intuition)	28.1
Se (extraverted sensing)	14.3
Si (introverted sensing)	24.5
Te (extraverted thinking)	31
Ti (introverted thinking)	37
Fe (extraverted feeling)	26
Fi (introverted feeling)	39

grant-brownsword function type	ENFP
axis-based function type	INFP
myers-briggs function type	INTJ
most likely myers-briggs type	INTJ

e	n	f	p
7.3	68.3	46.8	43.6
105.9	54.5	80.3	69.5
i	s	t	j
clear I preference
unclear N preference
strong T preference
slight J preference


----------



## Autumnie

Ne (extraverted intuition)	21.3
Ni (introverted intuition)	14.9
Se (extraverted sensing)	8
Si (introverted sensing)	35.7
Te (extraverted thinking)	11
Ti (introverted thinking)	20
Fe (extraverted feeling)	24
Fi (introverted feeling)	28

grant-brownsword function type	ISFJ
axis-based function type	ISFJ
myers-briggs function type	ISFJ
most likely myers-briggs type	ISFJ

e	n	f	p
7.7	21.9	72.1	17.4
97.3	89.8	32.6	81.6
i	s	t	j

clear I preference
strong S preference
strong F preference
strong J preference


----------



## melloi

I always struggled with these long function tests, as I couldn't picture half of the questions manifesting in my real life experiences or interactions, so I thought the questions were ambiguous or wrong. But after 2 years of pushing myself to the absolute social and professional limits at work, I actually found out a whole lot about myself. Having explored the horizons and borders of my personality by putting myself to the test in a real and challenging environment... I come back to these function tests with absolute confidence, as I can now relate every single question asked to a multitude of real-life situations I now encounter fairly regularly, and know my preferred way of dealing with them.


----------



## NatureChaser

I do think I have Fi instead of Fe though


----------



## Lord Thanksalot

An interesting question would be: what function do you use to fill in the questions in the first place?

Somethings that makes me slower than others to fill in questionnaires about myself is that I use Sensing, I have no choice but to use Se and Si (preferably Se because Si is more biased, but Se has no grip there).

The results say:

grant-brownsword function type	ESFP
axis-based function type	ISFP
myers-briggs function type	ISTP
most likely myers-briggs type	ESTP

With functions:
Ne (extraverted intuition)	25
Ni (introverted intuition)	17.2
Se (extraverted sensing)	32
Si (introverted sensing)	22.8
Te (extraverted thinking)	24
Ti (introverted thinking)	32
Fe (extraverted feeling)	11
Fi (introverted feeling)	32

e n f p
51.8 46.6 1.4 60.6
48.4 62.2 97.1 40.9
i s t j
undifferentiated
unclear S preference
clear T preference
slight P preferenc

How is Fi my strongest function?  It's common for me to be unable to identify how I feel...


----------



## ECM

Lord Thanksalot said:


> How is Fi my strongest function?  It's common for me to be unable to identify how I feel...


Plot twist, you knowing that you don't know how you feel is knowing you feel confused of which "is" the emotion!


----------



## ECM

Interesting version of the test for sure. 









People have always said I'm a very ENTPish ENFP, perhaps it's because I do have a stronger Ti than the average ENFP that I can tap into? I do tend to use a mix of both types of thought at times. But who knows. Don't think I agree with Te being my lowest function though, I know for a fact that I use it a hell of a lot.

The Fi/Fe thing is interesting as they are both equally scored, and my personal theory is that Fi/Fe should be considered "one function", just "feelings" which is all encompassing, and that it is "indivdual" that a person either puts themselves or the group first, and is often situational. And how does one really define one from the other, if say one's "personal moral values" (Fi) includes "putting the needs of a group ahead of himself (Fe)" and that someone who classifies as using Fe, feels uneasy about putting themselves ahead of the group (a personal aka Fi feeling). To me Fi vs Fe is just a subjective framework of labels, and doesn't actually realise the heart of the issue is that they both are operating the same way in the end, and the end result of external action is "choice".


----------



## Libra Sun

The fact my e/i and p/j is nearly identical explains why it's so difficult for me to pin down my type. I'm no closer to figuring it out, but it was interesting, nonetheless. 

It makes sense that I have high Ne because my mind doesn't take anything at face value, but I'm not energized by the possibilities; if anything I just want a clear, definitive answer (especially on my type lol). I get impatient with multiple sources of information that doesn't get me any closer to figuring something out, yet I'm constantly seeking out multiple perspectives to help me make the right decision. I feel very contradictory in my thought process. I also have a difficult time with the typing questionnaires (as I've done multiple of them, and my answers vary according to my mood/mindset) because I honestly don't know how I'd react unless I've personally experienced it or it's something I at least find relatable. 

I also agree with my being a sensor, as I'd imagine had I favored an intuitive process I would've come to some conclusion already. I just feel too unaware to be a sensor yet too grounded to be an intuitive, which makes finding my true type difficult and frustrating. 

What I've also noticed about my trying typing process is that I don't feel like I store information, it's very in the moment (unless it's a memory or something meaningful, I notice... then it's stored and locked in a file cabinet) I just unconsciously keep only pieces that make sense to me. It's like... I become obsessed with something (in this case, figuring out my type) and I'll harp on it forever; read multiple sources, but skip those sources that are too theoretical and open to interpretation, get multiple perspectives from those I find knowledgable, and then become frustrated/overwhelmed and drop it for awhile. I'll then come back to it, feeling like I'm starting from scratch; I don't take what I already know and apply it in my continued search, it's like I'm learning it all over again. I'm not sure if this is even a cognitive function thing, but it's something I've noticed.


----------



## Sygma

I knew I wasnt crazy
@ai.tran.75 @Windblownhair @NIHM


----------



## Windblownhair

Sygma said:


> I knew I wasnt crazy
> @*ai.tran.75* @*Windblownhair* @*NIHM*


What do you think fits best?


----------



## Sygma

Windblownhair said:


> What do you think fits best?


I'm mostly using Fe and Ne as the different outfits to wear. Mostly engaging and having an easier time to relate to people without having to talk about or display my own emotions (I'm very private and deliberate with these) A going with the flow quality almost ?

I do think I'm fully myself with Ni and Ti if I can perceive some depth and an actual dialogue based on exploration / ideas / symbols and what they mean on a particularly individual point of view. 

It also is how I deeply care about someone, usually in a very thoughtful and symbolic way which is quite literally finding tokens embodying one's thoughts or emotions (or whatever of any nature and I go very deep with that, its always about said individual tho) 

As far as Se goes, I much prefer being a passenger in the real world. Anything too involving (driving, oddjobs) drives me up a wall, but I do like the perception of action even if I'm terrible at navigating that realm. 

I also am fairly certain of my tritype since the longest time (748) and do think that these intense streaks of "individual" framing in terms of logic or relating are matching with the 4 in there

So I'd say INFJ no doubts, even if when thinking about it seems more like ENFJ. But it isn't


----------



## ai.tran.75

@Sygma i got


Ne (extraverted intuition)	38
Ni (introverted intuition)	27.6
Se (extraverted sensing)	27
Si (introverted sensing)	10.7
Te (extraverted thinking)	18
Ti (introverted thinking)	35
Fe (extraverted feeling)	24
Fi (introverted feeling)	31

grant-brownsword function type	ENTP
axis-based function type	ISTP
myers-briggs function type	ENFP
most likely myers-briggs type	ENFP

e	n	f	p
62.8	118.4	61.2	123
35.7	-13.2	50.4	-19.9
i	s	t	j
slight E preference
clear N preference
slight F preference
clear P preference


----------



## Sygma

ai.tran.75 said:


> @Sygma i got
> 
> 
> Ne (extraverted intuition)	38
> Ni (introverted intuition)	27.6
> Se (extraverted sensing)	27
> Si (introverted sensing)	10.7
> Te (extraverted thinking)	18
> Ti (introverted thinking)	35
> Fe (extraverted feeling)	24
> Fi (introverted feeling)	31
> 
> grant-brownsword function type	ENTP
> axis-based function type	ISTP
> myers-briggs function type	ENFP
> most likely myers-briggs type	ENFP
> 
> e	n	f	p
> 62.8	118.4	61.2	123
> 35.7	-13.2	50.4	-19.9
> i	s	t	j
> slight E preference
> clear N preference
> slight F preference
> clear P preference


Makes perfect sense, seriously


----------



## ai.tran.75

Sygma said:


> Makes perfect sense, seriously


Care to elaborate? I’m a bit confused on the first 2 answers 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Sygma

ai.tran.75 said:


> Care to elaborate? I’m a bit confused on the first 2 answers
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


https://sakinorva.net/library/contextualizing_functions

Read this  and remind yourself of the breakdown I did the other day 

I had a really strong hunch about compartmentalized behaviors / preferences aslong as the main outline of a function for an individual to "orientate itself around" was respected


----------



## electricky

I'd say you are on the right track with this one. And besides, it has butterflies, so that automatically makes it better than some of the other tests around.


----------



## The Dude

The 3x I've taken the actual MBTI assessment I got INTP, so that's right. I agree with the INFP part. It's what I've concluded from self study because other tests have me all over the place based on structure and mood (tired, energetic, hungry, etc.)


----------



## pikapal

Seems right...


----------



## LCapitan

very interesting questions and method to approach your MBTI type.

I would say this is the "most accurate" test I took so far. Well done!


----------



## Wax Diamond

Interesting. The most relevent to me with the one made by Erik Thor.

Others do suck.

So I'm infp or infj. Don't think I'm intp. Keeping on my search...


----------



## Ananse

Suzziexo said:


> View attachment 842179
> 
> 
> What does this mean?


Seems to indicate you're INTJ.


----------



## 543452

Interesting test, here's what I got:

Ne (extraverted intuition)	12.3
Ni (introverted intuition)	42.9
Se (extraverted sensing)	9
Si (introverted sensing)	7.7
Te (extraverted thinking)	15
Ti (introverted thinking)	36
Fe (extraverted feeling)	27
Fi (introverted feeling)	29

grant-brownsword function type	INFJ
axis-based function type	INFJ
myers-briggs function type	INFJ
most likely myers-briggs type	INFP

e	n	f	p
-15.8	106	66.6	49.9
131.8	-8.4	53	41.6
i	s	t	j
clear I preference
clear N preference
slight F preference
undifferentiated

I gotta work on my sensation side more, I'm admittedly garbage at Se right now. The questions were good, although the functions were obvious to match.


----------



## angelfish

Interesting. The questions were better than many tests. As someone familiar with the theory, the most impactful questions at the end were a little disappointing, because it was easier to see through them, though they probably help get better results. That being said, I love the butterflies and colors.


----------



## Always Tired

I took it yesterday. I got INTP across the board, but my Ni was surprisingly high.


----------



## PathSeeker

Unsurprisingly, Ni is my highest at 44.2. This is followed by Ti at 41. Ne is next with 39.4. The final piece to matching with a different assessment's test result is Fi, coming in fourth. It's 31. After that, it all separates. I have 25 Te somehow, 24 Se, 20 Fe, and interestingly my lowest is Si with 18.

My Grant function type is ENTP. Myers function type is INTP. MBTI is INTP.

Wow, no one rivals the xNTPs with 80+ scores. Nearest contenders are INTJ and ISTP, which is expected. N, T, P, and I are the order in which my traits are the most pronounced.

Nice test. Quite accurate.


----------



## Reginer

I mostly get INTP(I am currently leaning to INTJ as a more probable type. on these tests online. I have been typed as INTP and INTJ by the people here. Interestingly test results seems to indicate the arguments which can be made for both types for myself. Probably my ADHD is giving me a low J preference by dichotomy.


----------



## Varyafiriel




----------



## Universal Studios

Anywho, here’s my results


----------



## mino

Two attempts:

1.


Ne (extraverted intuition)25.6Ni (introverted intuition)43.4Se (extraverted sensing)27Si (introverted sensing)15Te (extraverted thinking)24Ti (introverted thinking)33Fe (extraverted feeling)34Fi (introverted feeling)28


(grant) function typeINFJmyers function typeINFJmyers-briggs typeINFP


ISTJ37.35ESTJ40.65ISFJ46.1ESFP49.9ESFJ51.9INFP51.95ENFP55.25INTP55.7ESTP56.15ISFP60.1ENTP61.5ENTJ62.3ISTP63.85INTJ72.5ENFJ73.55INFJ81.25

2.








I forgot to screenshot the list of types, but I remember that the top three were these:

INTJ: 80.25
INFJ: 80
ISTP: around 69


----------



## Wax Diamond

I took the test but I'm still unsure of my type, and why so many NF get some NT results.
So many questions unanswered.
How do they reach such a conclusion "most likely MB type" if the two others above are different ?


----------



## ImpossibleHunt

I decided to take the test again, just because I enjoyed it.


----------



## Dreamcatcherplaceboeffect

Ne (extraverted intuition)34.8Ni (introverted intuition)22.6Se (extraverted sensing)13Si (introverted sensing)21Te (extraverted thinking)24Ti (introverted thinking)32Fe (extraverted feeling)26Fi (introverted feeling)30



(grant) function typeENTPmyers function typeINxJmyers-briggs typeENFP

Cool test. Still uncertain about my type. Anyone have any opinion on which is more valid: Myers-Briggs type or Myers function type? (I feel like this forum generally prefers to examine the function type.)


----------



## mino

Dreamcatcherplaceboeffect said:


> Ne (extraverted intuition)34.8Ni (introverted intuition)22.6Se (extraverted sensing)13Si (introverted sensing)21Te (extraverted thinking)24Ti (introverted thinking)32Fe (extraverted feeling)26Fi (introverted feeling)30
> 
> 
> 
> (grant) function typeENTPmyers function typeINxJmyers-briggs typeENFP
> 
> Cool test. Still uncertain about my type. Anyone have any opinion on which is more valid: Myers-Briggs type or Myers function type? (I feel like this forum generally prefers to examine the function type.)


Neither. If you’re thinking about the function theory you probably know, it’s the Grant one. You’re an xNFP, most likely ENFP. You overestimated your Ti usage based on how much you use Te.


----------



## Dreamcatcherplaceboeffect

mino said:


> Neither. If you’re thinking about the function theory you probably know, it’s the Grant one. You’re an xNFP, most likely ENFP.


Definitely INFP then. I enjoy people and socializing in small doses, but choose to spend most of my time alone. I usually go out of my way to avoid crowds (even pre-pandemic). I find I can’t enjoy really busy venues like concerts, grand openings, etc. because there are too many people. I wish I were more extroverted, but in reality, I can be a bit awkward anytime I’m around new or intimidating people.


----------



## mino

Dreamcatcherplaceboeffect said:


> Definitely INFP then. I enjoy people and socializing in small doses, but choose to spend most of my time alone. I usually go out of my way to avoid crowds (even pre-pandemic). I find I can’t enjoy really busy venues like concerts, grand openings, etc. because there are too many people. I wish I were more extroverted, but in reality, I can be a bit awkward anytime I’m around new or intimidating people.


Ok let me stop you right there. You’re confusing social introversion from cognitive introversion. An INFP can be very socially extroverted, just like an ENFP can be extremely socially introverted.

Actually, more often than not, true ENFPs ARE socially introverted, which is why they mistype themselves INFx so frequently (similar functions to INFP while also having same function order as INFJ).

You’re an ENFP - either 6w7 or 9w1.


----------



## Wax Diamond

Fukuro said:


> View attachment 876785
> 
> View attachment 876786
> 
> I'm so confused. Few years ago I tried to let me type in this and other forums and alot of people said sure you are a S-type. But N here is by far the strongest and most certain here. Maybe I changed alot but I think my answers back then are still legit for me. Lately I got the vibe that I'm either ENFP or ENTP because of some descriptions i read somewhere and that they are the introverted extroverted. Because I think i am an ambivert.
> 
> So how good is this test here and do you think 61 points are strong enough to beat everyone till 57 points? Because I didnt often typed the far left or right Yes or No but thinking afterwards there were sure some statements where I have could been more bold. I'm also sure if I do the exact same test again I wouldn't get the exact same score because i often overthink some things or see some things in another way.
> 
> Another thing that I am questioning is the "T - Fairly sure". After ENTP there are 3 other types with F in it.
> So how should I rate this outcome. Are there any extra questions to get the last percent of certain out?
> 
> Sry I'm not a native englsih speaker and hope my grammar is good enough to understand me.
> 
> Thank you for your input.


Welcome on the planet ambiverts, doubts, e tuticuanti. 
The important is to still be able to think out of the box... Would it be possible the main part of ambiverts doesn't really wish to be typed, deep inside, flying free with no étiquette...
Maybe God created those creatures just for his/her own amusement and see how we would deal with the gift without training manual.


----------



## Fru2

@Fukuro Any definition of functions on the net and in books stems from an original piece - Jung's chapter X on type. If you really want to know your type, I suggest reading all the descriptions and see what fits best. There can be some other good sources out there, but none make things as clear as Jung does, he leaves no room for mistake really, while every other source leaves you with a lot of questions since it's so vague.


Classics in the History of Psychology -- Jung (1921/1923) Chapter 10


----------



## Fru2

Wax Diamond said:


> Welcome on the planet ambiverts, doubts, e tuticuanti.
> The important is to still be able to think out of the box... Would it be possible the main part of ambiverts doesn't really wish to be typed, deep inside, flying free with no étiquette...
> Maybe God created those creatures just for his/her own amusement and see how we would deal with the gift without training manual.


Everyone is an ambivert, otherwise we would be heavily imbalanced


----------



## Fukuro

@Wax Diamond Funny enough it's quite the opposite. I wish to be typed and find something to hold on and giving me some insight.

@Fru2 Thank you for your reply and giving me the text. I'm not sure if it will help me though because scientifically written texts are not my strength and if its written in another language it will be even harder to understand. I will try my best and find something useful


----------



## Wax Diamond

Fukuro said:


> @Wax Diamond Funny enough it's quite the opposite. I wish to be typed and find something to hold on and giving me some insight.
> 
> @Fru2 Thank you for your reply and giving me the text. I'm not sure if it will help me though because scientifically written texts are not my strength and if its written in another language it will be even harder to understand. I will try my best and find something useful


Alright...
Then I must suppose God did NOT create YOU for his/her own amusement !


----------



## Sily

http://imgur.com/a/Hkm4Kq1




http://imgur.com/a/cF7UPTL


----------



## Fukuro

Fukuro said:


> View attachment 876785
> 
> View attachment 876786


Sry people to write again, but my confusion skyrocketed.Yesterday i retested and today too. This is what happened.











The test yesterday was nearly the same a bit lower on Ni (like 33.4 or smthg). I found a test I did 4 years ago and this was the result.

Ne 65 %
Ni 60 %
Se 32 %
Si 40 %
Te 40 %
Ti 50 %
Fe 52 %
Fi 54 %

So what I know from this and other test is that. My most dominant function has to do with Intuition and my last is sensing. Ti was always above Te. Fi and Fe were close to each other as is seems with the Intuition types. So right mroe I am inbetween ENTP and INFJ which probably shouldn't be close to each other.
The 4 Types starting with Intution are:

ENTP: Ne > Ti > Fe > Si
ENFP: Ne > Fi > Te > Si
INTJ: Ni > Te > Fi > Se
INFJ: Ni > Fe > Ti > Se


Somehow within the last days I dont think I am the bubbly energetic ENFP and i never considered being an INTJ. I really think I have way more Ti then Te so in the end only INFJ and ENTP are there.
Now I read a lot of threads saying Ne and Ni are way different and you would spot the difference, but with both being on top of my highscore I can relate to both sides.

Do you have anything to help me with my typing?

Thank you again for reading my text.

Fukuro

EDIT: 1 day later i tried to be more excessive with my vote so that i try to lean more on the right or on the left of my votes to distuingish better and this was the result:










So still intuition is very high but now ne is over Ni. Fi and Ti skyrocketed. Everything else seems normal. Maybe ENTP is the most plausible. I really dont think my Te is strong so I don't guess ENFP will make a comeback. What do you think?


----------

