Sensory-Intuitive Test - objects counting

[machintruc]

This test is not like easyTIM. In this test you'll have to count objects on screen, interpretate results, and try to see if you're more likely to be Sensory or Intuitive.

This test has 2 steps :

Step 1 : Counting objects (X-letters) as fast as possible, then trying to input an exact number.

Step 2 : Counting objects (X-letters) more approximatively, in a limited time, then trying to input a number which is the nearest possible to the exact number.

Sensory types would manage better Step 1 than Step 2, the reverse is true for Intuitive types.

---

This program won't tell you explicitly if you're sensory or intuitive or any such probability. Results are intended to be interpretated by a human being. It's not guaranteed 100% free of any bugs, inconsistencies or such.

http://www.socioniquefrance.power-heberg.com/files Then download SI-0.1.zip. Archiven contains a Win32 console .EXE file (like easyTIM).

No known virus found : SI-0.1.exe scanned with ClamAV 0.90.2, Virus DB version : (main: 43; daily: 3342)

Made with FreeBASIC - binaries are public domain and sources are closed (for now).

Console Screenshot (to give you an idea of what it's more exactly) :

           X
                             X                             X
                                                            X
                                 X
                                                 X

      X
                           X                                            X
                        X

                              X
                              X                         X               X   X
                                                                  X
   X                                    X
  X           X            XX                            X               XX
      X                                   X    X                    X       X X
                                                                 X     X
                                                                  X         X
              X           X
                                                                              X



Stage 1/6 - Time Elapsed   5.34 s - Press [ENTER] when finished

Seems harsh but at least it will resemble more to a serious test than a random videogame.

[eunice]

My results:
Step 1-Sensory test
Exact - Input - Difference - Time
Stage 1: 30 31 1 16.19s
Stage 2: 60 60 0 28.26s
Stage 3: 80 79 1 48.32s

Step 2 - Intuitive test
Stage 4: 81 75 6
Stage 5: 119 90 29
Stage 6: 113 95 18

[aestrivex]

this is a really dreadful test. exactly what is this supposed to measure?

[machintruc]

this is a really dreadful test. exactly what is this supposed to measure?

This is inspired from a Filatova's technique to measure the Sensory-Intuitive axis : you'd have to see a photo for 1 minute or such. A Sensory type would describe it with details, and an Intuitive type would describe it with approximations.

It's pretty hard to know exactly types with a satisfying (professional-compatible) accuracy. So it's pretty useful to have reliable tests.

It's pretty hard also to differentiate Sensory types and Intuitive types. Most beginners confuses SEI with IEI, ESE with EIE, etc.

Most people will think "it's better to be intuitive", so they are more likely to type themselves as intuitive. Sensing is supposedly related to narrow-mindedness.

It's pretty easy to diagnose temperaments, but interaction styles are more difficult to be. This test is an alternative to differentiate local-inclined people with global-inclined people.

For example, on the 1st step, an Intuitive type is more likely to tolerate errors of +/- 2 , as a Sensory type would count X-letters rather slowly but efficiently.

On the 2nd step, a Sensory type would normally strive to get approximations, as an Intuitive type would get approximations more calmly, by taking groups of 10 or 20, and adding them, with ease of putting an unexact but pretty accurate result.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[machintruc]

I know the directions said to take it at least 3 times, but I only took it twice:


1. 35 35 0 16.26s
2. 51 51 0 19.93s
3. 85 84 1 47.11s


4. 92 86 6
5. 129 120 9
6. 139 115 24
-----------------------

1. 32 32 0 10.27
2. 53 53 0 21.62
3. 83 83 0 29.72

4. 80 88 8
5. 118 120 2
6. 145 120 25

An example : This result pattern seems good at Sensory AND Intuitive parts, although better at Sensory part. This result pattern is pretty relevant to Sensory types, especially Introtims, because Sensory Introtims generally have an high IQ.

[aestrivex]

For example, on the 1st step, an Intuitive type is more likely to tolerate errors of +/- 2 , as a Sensory type would count X-letters rather slowly but efficiently.

On the 2nd step, a Sensory type would normally strive to get approximations, as an Intuitive type would get approximations more calmly, by taking groups of 10 or 20, and adding them, with ease of putting an unexact but pretty accurate result.

not at all.

[machintruc]

For example, on the 1st step, an Intuitive type is more likely to tolerate errors of +/- 2 , as a Sensory type would count X-letters rather slowly but efficiently.

On the 2nd step, a Sensory type would normally strive to get approximations, as an Intuitive type would get approximations more calmly, by taking groups of 10 or 20, and adding them, with ease of putting an unexact but pretty accurate result.

not at all.

So try that test and tell me what's wrong with it...

[aestrivex]

what's wrong with it is the underlying concept that an intuitive type will somehow be less adept at counting a bunch of characters than a sensory type. that's just stupid. it's not a type related thing, unless some EP type gets too bored doing this ridiculous excercise and inputs any random number.


when i took this i got differences of less than three on all of the sensory ones and within eleven for all of the intuitive ones. completely meaningless results.

[machintruc]

what's wrong with it is the underlying concept that an intuitive type will somehow be less adept at counting a bunch of characters than a sensory type. that's just stupid. it's not a type related thing, unless some EP type gets too bored doing this ridiculous excercise and inputs any random number.


when i took this i got differences of less than three on all of the sensory ones and within eleven for all of the intuitive ones. completely meaningless results.

EP types can be serious when they have to, and let's suppose it can't differentiate ESP with ENP, it could differentiate ISJ and INJ...

It seems to work for me (I just made it) :

          Exact - Input - Difference -   Time

Stage 1 :   35      34          1       14.56 s
Stage 2 :   65      66          1       24.20 s
Stage 3 :   99     102          3       43.50 s
Stage 4 :   81      90          9
Stage 5 :  119     135         16
Stage 6 :  130     170         40

--------------------------------------

Stage 1 :   37      37          0       15.22 s
Stage 2 :   55      55          0       26.10 s
Stage 3 :   81      84          3       36.72 s
Stage 4 :   73      75          2
Stage 5 :   94      85          9
Stage 6 :  139     110         29

--------------------------------------

Stage 1 :   30      30          0       10.78 s
Stage 2 :   61      62          1       30.66 s
Stage 3 :   94     120         26       39.98 s
Stage 4 :   90      70         20
Stage 5 :  111     120          9
Stage 6 :  122     140         18

--------------------------------------

Do you like mathematics ? If you exclude Stage 3 of Try 3, mean error on Stages 1-3 is 1.12 - relevent of intuitive types who are more tolerant to approximation than sensing types.

Those eight stages have taken 202 seconds and 463 X-letters were counted. So average of counting is 2.3 objects per second, with maximal under/over-estimation of less than 4%.

Stages 4-5 took exactly 26*6 = 156 seconds, and 568 X-letters were counted. This means that if I raise average counting to 3.6 objects per second (+58%), it would generate under/over-estimation of 3 to 29%.

[oyburger]

Sensory:
Difference Time
1: 2 13.57 s
2: 0 29.06 s
3: 1 44.20 s

Intuitive:
1: 17
2: 8
3: 17

[machintruc]

For now I think the 2nd Step is pretty redundant.

The 1st Step is more likely to measure sensing than sensing. is related to space - i.e. in that context, counting things and know which were already counted or not yet counted, to avoid under/over-counting.

[Exodus]

It doesn't do anything when I press Enter.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Exodus]

It doesn't do anything when I press Enter.

Did you type OK first?

Never mind.

[Exodus]

Test 1

33 33 0 11.64
61 61 0 17.11

Test 2

56 55 1
128 90 38
122 100 22

[machintruc]

Test 1

33 33 0 11.64
61 61 0 17.11

Test 2

56 55 1
128 90 38
122 100 22

Do you really know the difference between sensory and intuitive types ?

[implied]

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1334/...a2aa0a88_o.jpg

i got a bit bored with the 2nd half/guesstimate part of the test.

[reyn_til_runa]

i counted by twos in all stages so really didn't see much of a difference between sensory and intuitive.

--- RESULTS - WRITE THOSE ON PAPER ---

STEP 1 - SENSORY TEST

          Exact - Input - Difference -   Time

Stage 1 :   31      31          0       11.23 s
Stage 2 :   65      66          1       18.36 s
Stage 3 :   92      96          4       23.47 s

STEP 2 - INTUITIVE TEST

          Exact - Input - Difference

Stage 4 :   71      72          1
Stage 5 :  125     130          5
Stage 6 :  103     104          1

--------------------------------------

Write these results on paper. It is recommanded to launch this test
at least 3 times to get a more precise diagnosis.

Type 'OK' and press [ENTER] to exit this program.

[claire]

ha psht i couldn't even get through this i saw all the little numbers and downloading stuff and was just like f this i know what i am

[Exodus]

Test 1

33 33 0 11.64
61 61 0 17.11

Test 2

56 55 1
128 90 38
122 100 22

Do you really know the difference between sensory and intuitive types ?

Do I seem like a sensory type to you?

i counted by twos in all stages so really didn't see much of a difference between sensory and intuitive.

Yeah, in the intuitive part I counted as many as I could, and then divided by the fraction of the screen that I got through.

[machintruc]

Sensory types acquire information slowly, but accurately.

Intuitive types acquire information fast, but approximately.

[reyn_til_runa]

Sensory types acquire information slowly, but accurately.

Intuitive types acquire information fast, but approximately.

Accurately and approximately in relation to...?

[machintruc]

Sensory types acquire information slowly, but accurately.

Intuitive types acquire information fast, but approximately.

Accurately and approximately in relation to...?

When you acquire information, you're doing it with a certain balance of speed and accuracy. Do you read books slowly, word by word, or do you skip words, read diagonally to search the most important parts of text ?

[reyn_til_runa]

Sensory types acquire information slowly, but accurately.

Intuitive types acquire information fast, but approximately.

Accurately and approximately in relation to...?

When you acquire information, you're doing it with a certain balance of speed and accuracy. Do you read books slowly, word by word, or do you skip words, read diagonally to search the most important parts of text ?

It depends on my interest level, time limit, distractability, the length of book, and so on. I don't mean to split hairs, but you cannot conclude much from this test because there are far too many individualized potential factors at work. Besides, it is relatively easy to train oneself to count both quickly and accurately.

[machintruc]

Sensory types acquire information slowly, but accurately.

Intuitive types acquire information fast, but approximately.

Accurately and approximately in relation to...?

When you acquire information, you're doing it with a certain balance of speed and accuracy. Do you read books slowly, word by word, or do you skip words, read diagonally to search the most important parts of text ?

It depends on my interest level, time limit, distractability, the length of book, and so on. I don't mean to split hairs, but you cannot conclude much from this test because there are far too many individualized potential factors at work. Besides, it is relatively easy to train oneself to count both quickly and accurately.

Yes, you can develop weak cognitive processes by training...

[reyn_til_runa]

Sensory types acquire information slowly, but accurately.

Intuitive types acquire information fast, but approximately.

Accurately and approximately in relation to...?

When you acquire information, you're doing it with a certain balance of speed and accuracy. Do you read books slowly, word by word, or do you skip words, read diagonally to search the most important parts of text ?

It depends on my interest level, time limit, distractability, the length of book, and so on. I don't mean to split hairs, but you cannot conclude much from this test because there are far too many individualized potential factors at work. Besides, it is relatively easy to train oneself to count both quickly and accurately.

Yes, you can develop weak cognitive processes by training...

Of course, but show me how the elements of this test relate to cognitive processes in the first place. As far as I can tell, the Xs are just little bugs on my computer screen, existing for nothing else but to obstruct my view.