(click here to take our other tests)

sakinorva cognitive
function test
Notice: A new Enneagram test was made
to replace the RHETI.
Myers-Briggs type extrapolation is not yet
available, but will be soon. You can find it
here:
https://sakinorva.net/test/enneagram

Select a language:

Spanish translation courtesy of

@marionalas2 (contributed questions). If
you would like to contribute translations,
please e-mail me at la@sakinorva.net. You
may inquire about advertising
opportunities.

This test has 96 questions.

Your results will be calculated into a table

using four different methods:
The Grant/Brownsword model - though
untrue to Grant's definitions for the types
and their functions in From Image to
Likeness: A Jungian Path in the Gospel
Journey and those of Brownsword's in It
Takes All Types! and Psychological Type:
An Introduction, this test tries to reconcile
the type development stack first proposed
by Grant with the more MBTI-centric (as
opposed to Jung-centric) definitions for the
functions used by the typology community
today.
The axis-based model - this algorithm
uses preferences for function axes to arrive
at a type, a practice commonly used by
magicians and typologists today.
(Temporarily not a thing.)

The Myers model - this algorithm stays

as true as possible to how Isabel Myers
had envisioned function orientations in
her types, especially emphasizing the
importance of the extraverted functions in
determining type. (I may later expand on
this in the FAQ.)
The Myers-Briggs type indicator - this
test also attempts to calculate your Myers-
Briggs type through a careful examination
of each question and how it would
correlation with each of the eight
preferences; though roundabout and based
only on theoretical correlations, it is
reasonable to assume that this result will
be more accurate than the previously
mentioned algorithms in determining your
Myers-Briggs type.

You can select five options per question,

where the rightmost choice corresponds to
"agree" and the leftmost choice
corresponds to "disagree." The three
options in the middle correspond to only
moderate preferences for each side, the
middle option being specifically for "no
preference for either side." To aid you in
remembering this, "agree" and "disagree"
have been labeled on their corresponding
columns.

Scroll down to view your results after

submitting.

#1 Te gusta tomar riesgos.

#2 Valoras mucho la armonía social y,

a menudo, haces todo lo posible por
mantenerla.

#3 Reconoces fácilmente las

sensaciones internas corporales y
actúas para satisfacer las necesidades
de tu cuerpo.

#4 Prosperas con experiencias nuevas

y emocionantes.

#5 Te sientes como si fueras una de las

únicas personas verdaderamente
agradables que quedan en este mundo.

#6 Te disgusta el cambio.

#7 Eres extremadamente objetivo y "lo

digo tal cual es"

#8 Sientes que tus ideas a menudo se

malinterpretan.

#9 Tienes problemas comunicando tus

ideas con la gente.

#10 Puede que te describan como

tonto.

#11 Eres un generador de ideas:

ofreces una multitud de ideas
diferentes en una situación
determinada.

#12 Inicias diferentes proyectos, pero

solo terminas algunos.

#13 Intentas ayudar a la gente hasta

el punto donde comienzas a olvidar tus
propias necesidades.

#14 Has sido consistentemente lógico

durante toda tu vida.

#15 Valoras mucho los detalles y las

experiencias del pasado.

#16 Eres visto como "entrometido" o

"controlador" por otros.

#17 Te enfrentas a los problemas por

ti mismo y te desligas de los demás
para llegar a una conclusión.

#18 Absorbes información del mundo

exterior sin procesamiento adicional.

#19 Tú "simplemente sabes" las cosas

sin ser capaz de expresarlas
conscientemente con palabras.

#20 Tiendes a expresarte

simpáticamente solo después de
empatizar con alguien.

#21 Te ves atraido por el simbolismo,

el misticismo y lo desconocido.

#22 Crees que llegar a una verdad es

más importante que ganar una
discusión.

#23 Relacionas experiencias presentes

con experiencias pasadas.

#24 Tienes un excelente sentido de la

dirección e instantáneamente te
ubicas en un lugar nuevo.

#25 Prefieres vivir en tus sueños que

en el mundo real.

#26 Te consideras una persona

práctica y realista, sin imaginación.

#27 Vives en el "aquí y ahora".

#28 Harías lo que sea con tal de ganar

un debate.

#29 Valoras mucho la tradición y el

deber.

#30 A menudo te sientes incómodo y

sin rumbo durante el tiempo libre.

#31 Vives en el presente, no en el

pasado ni en el futuro.

#32 Te molesta cuando los demás no

aprecian tu cuidado hacía ellos.

#33 Estás consciente de tu entorno y

no sueles perderte de nada de lo que
pasa frente a ti.

#34 Puedes fácilmente pensar en algo

al azar para decir.

#35 Eres intensamente individualista

y estás orgulloso de tu unicidad.

#36 Te imaginas cosas que no están

directamente relacionadas con el
mundo real.

#37 Puedes ser visto como egoísta o

egocéntrico.

#38 Aceptas temas con un interés

ardiente solo para dejarlos una vez
que ya no se sienten nuevos para ti.

#39 Te consideras una persona

organizada y tomas control de las
situaciones antes de que se escapen de
las manos.

#40 Estás de acuerdo con aquellos que

dicen que el fin justifica los medios.

#41 Confías fuertemente en los hechos

y datos más que en ninguna otra cosa.

#42 Te cuestionas todo.

#43 No puedes evitar obsesionarse con

los pequeños detalles.

#44 Eres hábil para reconocer si los

detalles frente a ti coinciden con lo que
estás acostumbrado.

#45 Tienes buen ojo para la estética y

el "disfrutar las cosas finas de las
vida".

#46 Se te describe como "firme en tu

forma de actuar".

#47 Siempre te intentas comunicar

con tacto con la gente.

#48 Usualmente utilizas metáforas

para comunicar nuevas ideas.

#49 Constantemente te trazas metas y

objetivos.

#50 Te expresas a ti mismo

honestamente y auténticamente.

#51 La gente falsa te molesta.

#52 Sigues una rutina consistente.

#53 Prefieres endulzar un problema

antes que molestar a alguien mas.

#54 Exploras cosas en profundidad por

el mero hecho de explorarlas en
profundidad.

#55 Miras la foto completa en un mar

de detalles.

#56 Te apoyas en fuentes externas

para sustentar un argumento.

#57 Puedes ser visto como llorón y / o

depresivo.

#58 Eres franco(a) y directo(a) al

punto en la comunicación.

#59 Te gusta organizar cosas por

placer.

#60 Valoras la verdad y la lógica más

que ninguna otra cosa.
 #61 Eres usualmente el primero en
reaccionar a una pregunta.

#62 Consideras díficil concentrarte en

un solo tema.

#63 Ves tantas posibilidades que se te

dificulta comprometerte con una sola.

#64 A menudo llegas a conclusiones

que parecen surgir de la nada; te
relacionas con "darte cuenta" de las
respuestas.

#65 Modificas los marcos lógicos

internos para tener en cuenta los
nuevos datos y, a veces, te encuentras
reevaluándolos cuando los nuevos
datos son incompatibles con ellos.

#66 Ves el mundo como un conjunto de

posibilidades esperando ser
exploradas.

#67 Optimizas los sistemas existentes

en búsqueda de la eficiencia y la
productividad.

#68 Te pone nervioso(a) la

incertidumbre y lo desconocido.

#69 Te atrae lo abstracto y, a menudo,

te obsesionas con los significados.

#70 Tienes una fuerte tendencia a ver

las cosas como buenas o malas.

#71 Eres increíble resolviendo

problemas y tienes una gran habilidad
para analizar las cosas de manera
profunda.

#72 A veces, no te adaptas a los

nuevos datos porque no son coherentes
con tu comprensión personal de una
idea.

#73 Generalmente, preferirías que

una solución fuera completa antes de
ponerla en acción (a costa de tiempo).

#74 Frecuentemente tienes

corazonadas o visiones acerca del
futuro que terminan siendo ciertas.

#75 Generalmente, trabajas los

problemas con otros y te involucras
con otros para llegar a una conclusión.

#76 Puedes ser visto como "falso" o

"manipulador" por los demás.

#77 Frecuentemente haces uso de

analogías y similitudes para
comunicar nuevas ideas.

#78 Fácilmente simpatizas con los

problemas de otros.

#79 Puedes ser visto como imprudente

y sin saberlo lastimar a quienes te
rodean.

#80 Tienes problemas comunicándote

con aquellos que no piensan como tú.

#81 Emanas carisma y usualmente

eres visto como alguien carismático
por los demás.

#82 Se te ocurren marcos, teorías y

sistemas lógicos internos para
describir el mundo que te rodea.

#83 Valoras la inclusión y intentas

involucrar a todos en un grupo.

#84 Eres capaz de manipular las

conversaciones leyendo el lenguaje
corporal de los demás.

PASA® Imper

Más de 30 años en el mercado,…

De 3 a 5 años de protección. Ideales como
impermeabilizantes en colores rojo y blanco.

Abrir

#85 Pones una gran cantidad de

confianza en el mundo misterioso e
inconsciente.

#86 Te vuelves testarudo y resuelto

frente a la oposición cuando se trata
de tus creencias personales.

#87 Tienes un estricto código moral

interno que proviene de adentro,
independientemente de los estándares
externos.

#88 Te ves atraido por lo nuevo,

novedoso y original.

#89 Eres fiel a ti mismo.

#90 Sientes un fuerte sentido de

unidad cuando te comunicas con otros
en un grupo.

#91 Eres reacio(a) a cumplir

estrictamente con los roles sociales.

#92 Tienes la tendencia de desviarte

del tema en las conversaciones.

#93 Crees que tu presencia se siente

mucho en una habitación.

#94 Te confias de experiencias

pasadas para guiarte durante el
presente.

#95 Tienes una misteriosa habilidad

de reconocer las necesidades de los
demás.

#96 Comprendes un concepto

reconociendo lógicamente y dibujando
patrones entre diferentes conceptos ya
conocidos.

PASA® Imper

Temporada de lluvias
De 3 a 5 años de protección. Ideales como
impermeabilizantes en colores rojo y blanco.

Abrir

The following questions are optional, but

recommended. Please answer truthfully.

You consent to me using your no

yes
answers for data analysis:

Age:

male female other

Gender:

What Myers-Briggs type do

you most identify with?

What Enneagram type do

you most identify with?

Any additional comments?

(answered here)

( submit results )

Ne (extraverted intuition) 34.8

Ni (introverted intuition) 36

Se (extraverted sensing) 29

Si (introverted sensing) 30

Te (extraverted thinking) 32

Ti (introverted thinking) 36

Fe (extraverted feeling) 10

Fi (introverted feeling) 31

(grant) function type INTP

myers function type INTP

myers-briggs type INTP

✪ click for more analysis

ESFJ 34.7

ENFJ 37.75

ISFJ 45.3

INFJ 54.25

ESTP 56.75

ESFP 58.5

ISTJ 60.55

ISFP 61.5

ESTJ 63.45

INFP 64.35

ENTP 65.5

ENTJ 66.5

ENFP 67.25

INTJ 69.5

ISTP 73.25

INTP 76.1

e n f p
-37.55 20.5 -65.75 10.9
-4.04 1.62 -3.9 0.32
z z z z
3.98 -1.01 2.77 -0.77
38.9 -8.35 49.4 -5
i s t j

ID:
2730221

frequently asked questions (updated

2018/11/14)

What is the Grant-Brownsword function

model?
In 1983, William Harold Grant, along with Magdala
Thompson and Thomas E. Clarke, authored a book
relating Jungian personality types to the Gospel by
correlating Biblical themes to Jung's functions.
Titled From Image to Likeness: A Jungian Path in
the Gospel Journey, the main purpose of this book
was to encourage the reader to understand the
importance and the meaning of "God's image" and
how to evoke it within you on a journey from image to
likeness. But this work contained a tidbit that would
come to shape typology today: a new psychological
model.

Grant dubbed it the third major model, highlighting

how it "views Jung's functions and attitudes on the
basis of a developmental typology." This model was
based on their observations from several hundred
people involved in their retreats and workshops
(frequently referenced as "R/W" throughout their
preface) along with thousands of students from two
universities; it specifically referred to four stages of
development from the ages of six to fifty.

Grant understood his model was a deviation from

conventional interpretations of Jung's work and did
not expect to "find support within the Jungian
tradition". In his own words, "admittedly, it needed
further testing." Grant included his model in the
book in order to encourage people to view their
personalities not statically but dynamically.

Alan W. Brownsword would end up writing It Takes

All Types! in 1987, utilizing Grant's model "in
accordance with" Myers-Briggs types. This is not
actually the case; Brownsword seemed to share an
incorrect belief with many personality theorists from
his time about the nature of "Type," and this caused
him to commit categorical errors when interpreting
Jungian theory and Myers' work with the MBTI.
When talking about the E/I orientations of the
tertiary and inferior functions, Brownsword only
says that "not all of students of Jung seem to agree
with [the tertiary function sharing the same direction
as the dominant function]" and dismisses the more
accepted**** interpretation of Jung's work claiming
that the "tertiary function" would be introverted with
a claim that "it just doesn't seem to work that way."
Consider Brownsword's model to be an awkward
amalgamation of Jungian psychological types,
Myers-Briggs theory, W.H. Grant's third model, and
his own interpretation of what's really going on.

The function stack today originated with Grant and

Brownsword, but has been popularized by figures
like Linda Berens and Dario Nardi. There is a lot of
history behind how this had come about, which you
can read more about here: Full context: the cognitive
functions.

**** the idea of having an "alternating stack" where

the functions would be ordered IEIE or EIEI is
fundamentally against how Jung described the
function attitudes. Jung never made a stack
template, but if he did, the directions would only ever
work with two exclusive directions (i.e. IEEE, EEII,
and IIIE would be acceptable, but not IEEI).
Brownsword talked about how the "tertiary" function
would be introverted according to Jungian analysts
but he really meant that a function in that position
would be introverted in their (correct) analysis of
Jung's work; "tertiary" functions are not a thing in
Jung's Psychological Types.

I don't understand—how is all of this

calculated?
I used to give the exact formulas for the calculations
before, but I like the idea of the numbers themselves
being publicly ambiguous. But I really don't have a
reason to be obscure about how the formulas are set
up:

The Grant-Brownsword algorithm calculates a score

for all sixteen possible types by adding up weighted
totals for the dominant, auxiliary, and—very weakly
—tertiary functions, then subtracting weighted
inferior function totals in the final add-up. It would
look something like this:
a(dominant)+b(auxiliary)+c(tertiary)-d(inferior) =
type_score

The axis-based algorithm will assume that there are

no inferior functions in your stack, and that
functions on opposite ends create axes that you would
either prefer or not prefer, so in other words, your
scores for Ne/Si are compared to Ni/Se, and the
same thing goes for Se/Ni and Ni/Se. The algorithm
then tries to figure out which one of those four
"valued" functions you prefer should be dominant,
and voila! You get your type.

Why isn't my Myers-Briggs result the same as

my function result?
Because they aren't the same thing. Your Myers-
Briggs result is based on the letter values assigned to
each question (for example, agreeing with question
#42 most significantly increases your E, N, and P
scores even though it would give you 2 points for
"Se") and your two other results are based only on the
raw function algorithms. They are scored differently
and mean different things.

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.

For now, I would just recommend interpreting your

results with this in mind, but I may add a permalink
for your results for inquiry purposes soon.

But your test is totally inaccurate! The

questions suck, and I know I'm definitely not
the type I got.
It's really anyone's guess what an "accurate"
interpretation of the functions is, because such a
thing doesn't actually exist. I know, crazy. Maybe you
think those definitions are absolutely wrong, maybe
somebody else thinks those definitions are absolutely
correct. There isn't a consensus on what function
theory is, and there frankly never will be.

But if you do think you have all the answers, I added

an option for people to choose an accuracy score for
the test—not of their results since they haven't seen
them—but for the questions in "assessing" your
functions. It's a little dumb because no one actually
knows which question scores for which function
before they get their results, but it would be a little
wonky adding post-result data to already-submitted
results. I'm sure there's a way, and I'll have to
experiment with what works best.

¿Quieres Conocer Tu IQ?

Anuncio test-iq.org

Adquiere una
franquicia
Anuncio Frozen Donuts

L Lawliet ~ MBTI,
Enneagram, and
Socionics Personality
Type
sakinorva.net

interpreting your
function test results
sakinorva.net

Oikawa Tooru ~ MBTI,

Enneagram, and
Socionics Personality
Type
sakinorva.net

Dazai Osamu ~ MBTI,

Enneagram, and
Socionics Personality
Type
sakinorva.net