# Making a better MBTI/JCF test... Cause we all know they suck.



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

@aconite


> Now, on topic.
> 
> Things I'd like to see in the test:
> 
> ...


No J/P bullshit in this test. Pure function approach.
Lack of stereotypes and so forth.
Though I see that to do that you kinda have to rethink a lot of stuff.
Even though I have some good ideas and some traction, 
I'm still at a loss how to start so I will basically just wing it and try to do some half baked stuff in this thread.
Hopefully I will get some ideas after messing around with some concepts.

*Defining Ne-Si vs Se-Ni:
Basically one axis has primitive ideas and advanced sensing and the others have primitive sensing and advanced ideas.
My claim here is that the extroverted perspective is "primitive".
One manifest as relating to change as the guide, and the other to how things appear as is.
Both lean heavily on the advanced supporting perspective to lend depth to otherwise chaotic takes on the world.
Si chooses a fixed point to anchor the change to and Ni makes guesses about select future paths in the world of objects.*

If everyone agrees that those two axises can be boiled down to this, then we may have a look at
how to test for these ways of looking at the world.
If you disagree on this definition now is a good time to voice your opinion.


----------



## midnightstars (Feb 21, 2012)

@hornet awesome! I have thought about building a better test too, the ones available are so ... blah. And unreliable. Its exhausting talking people out of incorrect test results (especially like an ISTJ who thinks the test is the authority and that I know nothing). I would love to help in any way I can, so if you need testers or anything let me know.

As for ideas on the test:
- Some may be against this, but I think defining whether you are male/female is important. Even if it only affects the test in a minor way.
- I think you should include stress on the test, as this might be easier to pinpoint for some people. Both what causes you to be stressed and how you react.
- Maybe have some questions about what your spouse would say, because this helped me when I was torn on F/T.
- Age might also be good to consider, since usually a young person is all dom/aux, whereas an older person will be more balanced.
- Don't rely too much on videos or images, since it would be nice for this to translate to mobile easily. Or it would be nice to have an offline version.
- Also, I second what someone else mentioned about big words ... I hate it, every time I give someone the Keirsey test I'm just explaining what questions mean the whole time.
- An idea: maybe get people on PerC to comment on their own dominant functions, how it actually feels to them. (Sort of like bestfittype.com but specific to the dom function.) Sometimes I read the descriptions and its unclear how that actually feels rolling around in your brain - because, lets be honest, usually one set of profiles are all written by the same author who is only personally experienced in maybe four of them. This info could be used to help formulate the questions, or it could be used itself as the question, i.e. give two statements and ask the person which they more identify with - I would suggest putting a Fe with a Fi etc etc, because a Fe against a Ti will be harder for the person to choose.


----------



## Poetic_Anarchy (Aug 13, 2012)

hornet said:


> Interesting scenario, question is how can we test that?
> Cause we are testing values then, and it is hard to say that Fi would have more consideration for others than Fe.
> Ti is suppressing Fe, but lack of concern for others might not be a good indicator.
> I know plenty of SFPs who wouldn't give a flying fuck and would press that detonator so fast,
> ...


Maybe if you worded it as "It's acceptable to kill a small group of people to save a large group of people" and then asked them if they agreed.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

Make all the functions sound displeasing so wont be tempted to pick whatever sounds the best. Make Se-Si look like a magical unicorn floating around handing out candy and hugs while whistling your favorite tunes from an cosmic surround sound of awesome sauce.....yeah you get my point
Oh and not grouping values or morals with Fi would be good also.


----------



## firedell (Aug 5, 2009)

I think all in all, it would be better to teach someone about the functions rather than them taking a test. Sometimes people tick admired qualities over their actual qualities. I know that the first time I took an MBTI test, I ticked what I thought was expected of me rather than who I am. The second time, I chose what the ideal me was. Which resulted in complete failures. 

The only way for someone to get their correct type, is for them to be educated, or for them to educate themselves.

Good luck in finding a happy medium; preventing bias is hard to do.


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

i'm actually not against measuring dichotomies, you just have to measure them against each other (otherwise it’s hard to even know what you’re measuring).

for the first phase of the test, doing so may narrow the type down to whether the user is a perceiver/judger, not just by finding a thinking/feeling problem, but by measuring the intensity of a thinking/feeling problem against the intensity of bias towards one form of perception. (the dom/inferior creates the personality, but the level of balance between aux’s.--and whether or not someone is, let's say, going through a "functional growth spurt" which could easily skew results--can create what amounts to a mini-personality within that of the dom/inferior; sure someone might have a problem surrounding their thinking, but they may have an even greater problem surrounding their intuition/sensing/etc). 

so that could be phase 1, just determining the general structure, and then phase 2 can be a closer look by zoning in and trying to specify the actual functions being used. (i guess the usual function tests would have to be used, but the definitions and questions would definitely have to be revised; 1) like others have said, the questions shouldn’t be leading, as in one is inherently better than the other or more appealing, 2) the questions shouldn’t even make it apparent as to which function(s) are sought out, etc).

if there's any discrepancy between the two phases, the test should alert the user to these problems based on the problem itself.
let’s say their aux is really apparent but the tert. seems to have no actual direction.
or, let’s say that the first phase has indirectly shown a preference towards perceiving just by the fact that a greater problem exists surrounding their perception, but in the second phase, judging is getting a higher "score". 
i think the test should show the tester each type as the test changed directions and contradicted itself, explain the problems that occurred, and give possible explanations as to why the problems showed up with certain literature connected to those problems, such as: developing an aux/tert may actually obscure your type as that function is getting more energy than it should be in order to be brought more fully into consciousness; all of your functions match but you seem to value one aux. more so than another which doesn't fit any MBTI stereotype (and supply literature for and against an exact ordering on the position of aux.s); always give literature on the dom/inferior according to Jung, and maybe use your own take on function philosophy to show why neither type is better than another, doing away with type-bias from the get-go and not allowing the user to cloud their own perception with b.s.

basically, just explain the problems that were encountered, and how these problems point to the limitations of _any sort of_ interpretation, giving the test taker an unbiased platform on which to approach all of this and a general structure that they can attempt to apply to themselves. 

(easier said than done, lol)

edit: i didn't read every post in this thread, so if this has already been said... oh well .


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

LiquidLight said:


> The problem is that people are so willing to call bullshit on a test, but there's no test that's willing to call bullshit on a person. That is the problem, a test lacks the intuition to know whether or not a person really is being honest about themselves or is answering in a truthful or forthcoming manner. The test can't be like "hey on question 17 you said you don't like people, and now on question 34 you're energized by them." So it really doesn't matter what kind of test you come up with so long as the person puts in bad or lacking information.


Actually, there's a socionics test that does that.
http://www.socionics.com/sta/sta-1-r.html?0:::


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

@hornet, maybe the test could be done in 3 steps? first defining the perceiving axis (NeSi or SeNi), the second defining the judging axis (TeFi or FeTi) and the third defining which order they come in.

For the third step you might have to select the results from each of the 2 earlier tests to go to a specific test for those functions. There's really not any use to ask an INFJ question about if Ne or Si is the stronger for example.

Just a thought.


----------



## Poetic_Anarchy (Aug 13, 2012)

Acerbusvenator said:


> Actually, there's a socionics test that does that.
> http://www.socionics.com/sta/sta-1-r.html?0:::


I've taken it, but it isn't very good because one sheet "pick your good qualities" and the other is "pick your bad qualities". It only calls you if you pick direct opposites. It still requires a complete understanding of yourself and being honest.


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

Poetic_Anarchy said:


> I've taken it, but it isn't very good because one sheet "pick your good qualities" and the other is "pick your bad qualities". It only calls you if you pick direct opposites. It still requires a complete understanding of yourself and being honest.


Well, there wouldn't be any reason to take a test if you weren't being honest. And really, any test can be overcome so you can get the result you want.


----------



## Raichu (Aug 24, 2012)

I haven't read the whole thread, so I don't know where you guys are at with this, but my biggest problem with tests by far is that I've _never_ come across one where I got extroverted without cheating/lying. I'm about 1,000,000% sure I'm an extrovert, but I'm also very shy. So when I see questions like "Would you rather stay home alone, or go to a big party?" all I see is "Would you rather be a little bored, or have a _SUPER INTENSE ANXIETY ATTACK_?!?!?!?!"

Edit: Guys literally the worst test ever
literally
http://www.blogthings.com/howrareisyourpersonalityquiz/


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Many good ideas and points coming forth here.

This is perhaps one of the most Ne vid in my opinion that I've come across.
What are you guys opinion of this?
To me it is just random disconnected change and it makes me a bit queasy.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

To further implicate what I saying before,
Let's take "Details" in the understanding of functions and details is a lot of times not what people consider detail. Let's face it S an N both consent details in a different way. Sensors are not usually bothered by the Intuitive details of an situation just like Intuitive's are not concerned about the Sensing details. When it comes to self typing situations like this as well as values and many other in depth terminology is not gone over as someone has mention and several other's would agree going over and learning about all the stuff is usually the best way as far as self typing, even some people who type others, so to me either an test would have to also have a terminology section or skip certain terminology all together.


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

hornet said:


> Many good ideas and points coming forth here.
> 
> This is perhaps one of the most Ne vid in my opinion that I've come across.
> What are you guys opinion of this?
> To me it is just random disconnected change and it makes me a bit queasy.


LOL, definitely something I'd expect from an ENFP.


----------



## Vianna (Jul 28, 2012)

hornet said:


> Many good ideas and points coming forth here.
> 
> This is perhaps one of the most Ne vid in my opinion that I've come across.
> What are you guys opinion of this?
> To me it is just random disconnected change and it makes me a bit queasy.


Lol...I think it looks like an acid trip rather, than a Ne thing


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

endlessnameless said:


> Lol...I think it looks like an acid trip rather, than a Ne thing


Since you dismiss this as a Ne thing I would like to understand how you define Ne.
And also how that makes this vid not rooted in Ne.
Just so I know where you are coming from...
Can't make this work unless I have a firm understanding of potential pitfalls. :wink:


----------



## Poetic_Anarchy (Aug 13, 2012)

hornet said:


> Since you dismiss this as a Ne thing I would like to understand how you define Ne.
> And also how that makes this vid not rooted in Ne.
> Just so I know where you are coming from...
> Can't make this work unless I have a firm understanding of potential pitfalls. :wink:


To answer your second question first, this vid looks like it came straight out of a hallucinogen. And Ne is not related to drugs. :wink:
Imagine that life is a giant "connect the dots" sheet and you constantly finding different pictures.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Poetic_Anarchy said:


> To answer your second question first, this vid looks like it came straight out of a hallucinogen. And Ne is not related to drugs. :wink:
> Imagine that life is a giant "connect the dots" sheet and you constantly finding different pictures.


Yes I understand the "connect the dots" metaphor, but isn't that what this vid is displaying in a way?
One object "shape shifting" into another, by "changing the order of the dots".


----------



## Poetic_Anarchy (Aug 13, 2012)

hornet said:


> Yes I understand the "connect the dots" metaphor, but isn't that what this vid is displaying in a way?
> One object "shape shifting" into another, by "changing the order of the dots".


No, I think that's more Ni. I adjust my angle, but I don't change the facts.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Poetic_Anarchy said:


> No, I think that's more Ni. I adjust my angle, but I don't change the facts.


Then you might be using Ni my friend, or this is your Ti speaking. :wink:
I'm pretty sure that Ne don't give a hoot about the"facts" as it is based in subjective Si.
While Ni who is based in objective Se don't change the facts as the world of objects don't break it's own rules.

This thread summarizes how I look at it right now. (Need to read the whole thing though)

http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/129410-idea-about-introverted-intuition.html

Please give feedback on what you think about it.
If I've made an error anywhere I'd like to know about it now... XD


----------

