# Thread: New test idea: correcting mistypes

1. ## New test idea: correcting mistypes

Could it be that there is nothing really wrong with the tests we have, only our procedure for affirming type? Consider, what if we were to first have someone take a type test, then get a score, and then have them take a test that "validates" the type?

2. Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
Could it be that there is nothing really wrong with the tests we have, only our procedure for affirming type? Consider, what if we were to first have someone take a type test, then get a score, and then have them take a test that "validates" the type?
Tests to know if you're relevant to dominant information elements, their behaviours, their cognitive and verbal patterns.

I mean, tests that don't test what type you are, but rather how you're using an information element.

For example, how you use -.

1. If this element is more inputting, outputting, processing...
2. If this element is more verbal, physical, mental...
3. How much dimensions this element tends to use...
etc.

For example, we can have an easyTIM-like test to test -, with those scales :

As function 1 : xx.xx
As function 2 : xx.xx
As function 3 : xx.xx
As function 4 : xx.xx
As function 5 : xx.xx
As function 6 : xx.xx
As function 7 : xx.xx
As function 8 : xx.xx

xx.xx is the score.

You may make 8 or 16 such tests (one for each element), if however you have some guts...

We can even do that for Model T, for example, your perceptual thresholds of your Logic :

-L- : xx.xx
-L+ : xx.xx
+L- : xx.xx
+L+ : xx.xx

- and + before the L letter stands for low/high threshold of excitation ; - and + after stands for low/high threshold of inhibition.

3. Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
Could it be that there is nothing really wrong with the tests we have, only our procedure for affirming type? Consider, what if we were to first have someone take a type test, then get a score, and then have them take a test that "validates" the type?
I think there is something similar to this at socionics.com. On their test, one makes selections based on how they see themselves then the results are verified by you making selections that are the least like you. Quite a clever way to help validate the initial findings.

So yeah I think the tests currently in place are not too bad as they are, as long as people know themself enough to answer correctly. The thing about all internet based tests is that no matter how complex they are, they can be cheated on even after obtaining some rudimentary socionic knowledge.

4. Originally Posted by Cyclops
So yeah I think the tests currently in place are not too bad as they are, as long as people know themself enough to answer correctly. The thing about all internet based tests is that no matter how complex they are, they can be cheated on even after obtaining some rudimentary socionic knowledge.
Doubtful. The key is to ask "do you have CONFIDENCE in X?" When you start asking questions like that, your scores begin to improve quickly.

5. Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
Doubtful. The key is to ask "do you have CONFIDENCE in X?" When you start asking questions like that, your scores begin to improve quickly.
What exactly do you mean by saying do you have confidence in X?

Is this like answering each question on the scale of 1 to 5? (1 being never, 5 being always)

6. Originally Posted by Cyclops
What exactly do you mean by saying do you have confidence in X?

Is this like answering each question on the scale of 1 to 5? (1 being never, 5 being always)
Continuums do not exist in typology; rather, the continuum bias underlies the typology and produces it. (if you are 51&#37; T and 49% F on average, then you -are- T) It's the Se produces Ti thing. (and of course, Se produces Fi works, too)

Which do you have more confidence in 1) your ability to assess others' motives and moods 2) your ability to rigorously assess cause-vs-effect?

As for your "never/always" scale, if one were to use that it would be necessary to assess one's mood relative to the function choice. For example, if all of a sudden a T type is unconfident in their own logic, then they are no doubt depressed.

Originally Posted by dee
anyone, please post to machintruc to post the link to the file with the functions version of the easytim. i think he put me on ignore.
http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/easytim/

7. Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
Continuums do not exist in typology; rather, the continuum bias underlies the typology and produces it. (if you are 51% T and 49% F on average, then you -are- T) It's the Se produces Ti thing. (and of course, Se produces Fi works, too)
I don't agree with the sliding scale either. One is simply just one or the other. Putting a percentage scale on it is irrelevant because there are no reliable statistics to base this on. And even if they were, re my second sentence, it is largely a pointless and potentially misleading exercise.
Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
Which do you have more confidence in 1) your ability to assess others' motives and moods 2) your ability to rigorously assess cause-vs-effect?
Thats just a way to ask if one is T or F, there is nothing new here. And you are still relying on someone to know themselves, and believe me, I have seen people with some pretty fucked up ideas about themselves.
Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
As for your "never/always" scale, if one were to use that it would be necessary to assess one's mood relative to the function choice. For example, if all of a sudden a T type is unconfident in their own logic, then they are no doubt depressed.
I wouldn't say they were no doubt depressed. As a for instance, a creative Te type might start to re-evaluate their logic in comparison to a Te dominant, or even a Ti dominant. Or maybe if they are just in the company of someone who thinks more.

8. Originally Posted by Cyclops
I don't agree with the sliding scale either. One is simply just one or the other.
Do you think one person can be more A (vs. B) than another person, even if they are both "A"?

9. Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
Continuums do not exist in typology; rather, the continuum bias underlies the typology and produces it. (if you are 51% T and 49% F on average, then you -are- T) It's the Se produces Ti thing. (and of course, Se produces Fi works, too)
Could you please expand on this? I think I understand your first sentence, but what do you mean by "It's the Se produces Ti thing"?

10. Originally Posted by hellothere
Do you think one person can be more A (vs. B) than another person, even if they are both "A"?
I don't understand. If they are both A then they are the same person? Then yes because we hopefully should always be learning.

11. Originally Posted by hellothere
Could you please expand on this? I think I understand your first sentence, but what do you mean by "It's the Se produces Ti thing"?
If one is dominant Se then they must either have secondary Ti or Fi.

12. Originally Posted by Cyclops
I don't understand. If they are both A then they are the same person? Then yes because we hopefully should always be learning.
tcaudillg was referring to a continuum between dichotomies - the example he used was T and F - but A and B could equally refer to say Ne and Se.

Do you think someone can be "more T" (or "more Ne") than another person, even if they are both "T" (or both "Ne")?

13. Originally Posted by Cyclops
If one is dominant Se then they must either have secondary Ti or Fi.
I understand this, but there has to be more to what he was talking about - I don't see any connection between what you've explained and what tcaudillg said about continuums and typologies

14. Originally Posted by hellothere
tcaudillg was referring to a continuum between dichotomies - the example he used was T and F - but A and B could equally refer to say Ne and Se.

Do you think someone can be "more T" (or "more Ne") than another person, even if they are both "T" (or both "Ne")?
Good question. I think in theory no. In practice it could look like this-for several reasons:Some people develop an unhealthy fixation with their dominant function, and this can create the impression of being more A. This is because the person is allowing function A to be gratified to excess. Another example is that some people may place more of an emphasis on one of their other functions-for instance they may call upon a weaker N because there job is to work in theoretical physics. So on that note it's possible sub types are really just a way of expressing such a functional preference (although more research on sub types is required).

So what this means is that personal emphasis can change but the actual type would remain static.

I think that % of A can be useful in testing-if someone is close to 50% then they need to spend more time investigating to determine their preference, and if it comes up as 100% then that's a suggestion that the person is wise to the test and the questions it asks. So I wouldn't take this percentage on a populace base, but it might be useful to use it representing only the questions the test itself asks, simply for the validity of the result.

15. Originally Posted by dee
Such test doesn't exist yet. It still has to be created.

16. Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
Could it be that there is nothing really wrong with the tests we have, only our procedure for affirming type? Consider, what if we were to first have someone take a type test, then get a score, and then have them take a test that "validates" the type?
Yes, as a matter of fact I was just talking about that.

If you have a really, really good set of tests, maybe. I don't know. I am wary of tests. Seems like they only work if you really know what you are doing, or have someone who really knows what they are doing looking over everything.

17. I could definitely see the merit in tests that are designed for the sole purpose of telling two types apart from one another, eg. INTj vs. INTp tests.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•