Idea of a test based on PoLR avoidance (contribute!)

[XoX]

This thread is loosely related to another thread. See the link below for further information:
http://the16types.info/forums/viewto...746&highlight=

I'm exploring an idea of a test based on PoLR avoidance/exclusion. I'm describing the assumptions and the algorithm here so you can comment.
I actually implemented a simple prototype for personal use and the test seems promising at least in finding my own type.

Edit: Removed the description of test as outdated. I have updated the test to a form which relies heavily on PoLR, Dual Seeking function and utilizes all 8 functions in one form or another. I also moved from using single words to using several words to describe each function. The first version of the test is ready and working but it will take some time to take it online. It has to pass several validation efforts etc...if it fails those then it won't go online

[Park]

a person would never/rarely choose their PoLR (4th function) over their Hidden agenda (6th function). E.g. INTp would rarely choose to be more Fe than Fi.

I disagree.

[XoX]

a person would never/rarely choose their PoLR (4th function) over their Hidden agenda (6th function). E.g. INTp would rarely choose to be more Fe than Fi.

I disagree.

The PoLR vs. Hidden Agenda hypothesis is most questionable yes. The test doesn't necessarily need this to be true but it would be very helpful.

Anyways can you be more exact of why you disagree? In theory the hypothesis should be valid because a type should identify with their Hidden Agenda more than with their PoLR. Actually according to Model A your PoLR function should be the function you identify with least of all functions. I picked Creative, Demonstrative and Hidden Agenda functions for the test because that was most convenient subset (can be tested with only 12 questions, should result in fairly reliable answers).

In practice the problem might come down to wording. E.g. how to describe difference between Fe and Fi (both weakish functions in INTp and ISTp) so that INTp/ISTp can differentiate them. May or may not be possible.

So let's test this by a question to all INTps and ISTps:
"Would you describe yourself more as a Passionate or Compassionate person?"

What if the question is worded
"Would you describe yourself more as Emotional or Empathic person?"

How about
"Emotional or Compassionate person?"

Or perhaps
"Emotional or Ethical person?"

Personally I would most likely choose Fi in each case but how about you others? (of course I don't know my type for sure so using myself as an example can turn out be a bad idea...if I'm actually ISTj or INTj or even INFp perhaps then relying on my own preferences will prove to be a mistake. I haven't yet tested this on my wife or my friends but planning to later).

[aestrivex]

i agree with winterpark. i think this is an excellent method of testing, as the polr is an important factor in socionics which is ignored by most tests. nonetheless, it would be much more useful to test solely based on strong functions (1,2,7,8). this would require a lot of questions, but i don't think that's really a problem.


another possibility would be to describe each function as a polr and make people decide between polr descriptions of functions as to which fits them best. this might not work terribly well, but i've never seen it done before and i think it might be useful enough to try.

[Joy]

please check out what I wrote here

http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4560

[aestrivex]

@ joy

that's the sort of test that i think would be very effective, if descriptions are well written.

[Joy]

I agree. The only problem is finding a way to set up a test that gives you different questions based on previous answers.

[XoX]

i agree with winterpark. i think this is an excellent method of testing, as the polr is an important factor in socionics which is ignored by most tests. nonetheless, it would be much more useful to test solely based on strong functions (1,2,7,8). this would require a lot of questions, but i don't think that's really a problem.

Yes using all strong functions (1, 2, 7, 8) would possibly be a more reliable approach (making someone compare them with their PoLR). I thought of that but the test size will explode so I try to avoid it. And it seems using functions (2, 6, 8) is reliable enough and you can survive with a minimum of 12 questions. When ever you start to compare the "uneven" functions (1, 3, 5, 7) with an even function like PoLR (4) you have to ask lots more questions. And you can't really find exact type based on strong functions only.

Take for example ENTp, INTj, ENTj, INTp.
All have Ni Te Ti Ne as their strong (1, 2, 7, 8) functions meaning all will probably test that Ni, Te, Ti, Ne are stronger than their PoLRs. The weaker functions have to be used to separate these types (if we assume that only comparisons against the PoLR are reliable). Comparing Hidden Agenda and PoLR is the most natural comparison to do between a weak function and PoLR since you often think your HA is stronger than it is. Doing this we also find that we don't really need to use functions 1 and 7 at all which enables us to drop the amount of questions considerably. It is enough to use 2 and 8 and hidden agenda (and your PoLR of course). As I said before most problematic part seems to be to separate between types with same PoLRs. You have to use role function and/or dual seeking function somehow to achieve this.

[Joy]

only the first through fourth functions should be tested

[XoX]

only the first through fourth functions should be tested

I will dig into that approach later if current one does not work I might even if it works. But that approach would result in more questions than the chosen approach and thus being less optimal without providing much more reliability (if any). And I'm under impression you can't make a PoLR centered test without using at least one of the weak functions (preferably hidden agenda). I haven't explored all possibilities but it seems this is the case. This said, a stricktly PoLR centered approach is not necessarily the best. It is just the approach I chose for this effort. I can choose other approaches in the future.

[aestrivex]

i agree with winterpark. i think this is an excellent method of testing, as the polr is an important factor in socionics which is ignored by most tests. nonetheless, it would be much more useful to test solely based on strong functions (1,2,7,8). this would require a lot of questions, but i don't think that's really a problem.

Yes using all strong functions (1, 2, 7, 8) would possibly be a more reliable approach (making someone compare them with their PoLR). I thought of that but the test size will explode so I try to avoid it. And it seems using functions (2, 6, 8) is reliable enough and you can survive with a minimum of 12 questions. When ever you start to compare the "uneven" functions (1, 3, 5, 7) with an even function like PoLR (4) you have to ask lots more questions. And you can't really find exact type based on strong functions only.

Take for example ENTp, INTj, ENTj, INTp.
All have Ni Te Ti Ne as their strong (1, 2, 7, 8) functions meaning all will probably test that Ni, Te, Ti, Ne are stronger than their PoLRs. The weaker functions have to be used to separate these types (if we assume that only comparisons against the PoLR are reliable). Comparing Hidden Agenda and PoLR is the most natural comparison to do between a weak function and PoLR since you often think your HA is stronger than it is. Doing this we also find that we don't really need to use functions 1 and 7 at all which enables us to drop the amount of questions considerably. It is enough to use 2 and 8 and hidden agenda (and your PoLR of course). As I said before most problematic part seems to be to separate between types with same PoLRs. You have to use role function and/or dual seeking function somehow to achieve this.

i have no problem with tests that are 600 questions long. if anything, i prefer them because any test with that many questions is more reliable than some useless weird test with 20 questions. nonetheless, a lot of people don't appear to share this viewpoint.

i really think that taking polr vs hidden agenda is a recipe for disaster. there are going to be people who will identify more with a description of strong polr just because they aren't very familiar or aware of their hidden agenda.

i think you could get away with a test for demonstrative and creative functions, although using all strong functions would be much more accurate.

[XoX]

Ok, I'm trying to include DS (dual seeking) function into the testing process and rely less on PoLR. It seems as good a factor as PoLR if not better. In addition I try to include 1st function into the test (it can be done better now with DS included). This will take some time though...be back later...

[XoX]

First version of test is ready. I updated it quite bit to include all 8 functions in one way or another and stress the importance of PoLR and Dual Seeking function in finding and validating the result. Test is not yet ready to go online and it has to be validated and perhaps improved before that.

At this point I'm going to try to validate it with a selected group of people so if you don't receive a PM then you are not selected If the test sucks I will get back to drawing board.

[XoX]

First version of test is ready. I updated it quite bit to include all 8 functions in one way or another and stress the importance of PoLR and Dual Seeking function in finding and validating the result. Test is not yet ready to go online and it has to be validated and perhaps improved before that.

At this point I'm going to try to validate it with a selected group of people so if you don't receive a PM then you are not selected If the test sucks I will get back to drawing board.

Ok...the test is ok...but it can't 100% reliably select between mirrors, look-a-likes, or quasi-identicals based on function descriptions only. It is ok in this sense but I still doubt some results a bit. And I have tried many many different ways to do it but none is superior. I have to give it some more thought and add something extra. I'm also trying to figure out better ways to avoid dismissing a type because of one strongly conflicting and faulty answer.

[Raver]

This sounds like a good idea. I had thought about this, but in a different way.