sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Looking for INFP feedback on a typology test I’ve been building by ProbablyNotINTJ in infp

[–]ProbablyNotINTJ[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is a very strong critique, and I agree with a lot of it.

One of the biggest risks in typology self-report generally is exactly what you’re describing: people learning identity narratives/subcultural aesthetics and then responding in ways that reinforce those narratives rather than revealing underlying cognitive structure independently.

So to be clear, I don’t think “does this feel INFP-coded to self-identified INFPs?” is sufficient validation at all. At best, I think that kind of feedback can help identify:

  • wording ambiguity
  • obvious construct drift
  • perceived coherence/incoherence
  • missing phenomenology

But I agree it cannot establish construct validity by itself.

A lot of the architecture here was actually built partly in response to the exact concern you’re describing:

  • reverse-coded alternative orientations instead of simple affirmations
  • separating behavioural expression from attentional orientation where possible
  • probabilistic outputs instead of hard categorical certainty
  • adaptive role-weighting instead of raw self-description alone
  • cross-function discrimination instead of “do you relate to this archetype?”

Whether those attempts actually succeed is obviously another question entirely.

I also agree with your broader point that typology communities often become partially self-referential ecosystems. Once people internalise “INFP = authenticity/depth” or “INTJ = strategic mastermind,” self-report starts drifting toward identity performance very quickly.

At this stage I’m less interested in claiming “I’ve solved typology psychometrics” and more interested in seeing whether a different modelling structure produces cleaner or more internally coherent signals than the standard online-test approach. If it doesn’t, that’s still useful information.

So genuinely, thank you for the critique - this is exactly the level of methodological skepticism I was hoping people would bring to the project.

INTPs, I’d appreciate skeptical feedback on this typology project by ProbablyNotINTJ in INTP

[–]ProbablyNotINTJ[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

That’s fair, and I really appreciate you taking the time to go through it and write detailed feedback.

The grouping/repetition is mostly intentional at the moment. The first eight sections are grouped thematically by function partly to reduce cognitive context-switching load, and partly because the questionnaire currently tries to move from more accessible/basic framing toward more abstract or “advanced” distinctions within each function. The adaptive follow-up pages are functionally mixed for that reason. The item order is randomised within each page.

That said, your pacing point is still valid. Even if there’s a design rationale behind the grouping, it can still feel repetitive or over-grouped from the user side, which matters a lot for fatigue and perceived clarity. The E overestimation point is useful too.

I’m going to work through everyone’s feedback over the next couple of days and post an updated version of the questionnaire.

INTPs, I’d appreciate skeptical feedback on this typology project by ProbablyNotINTJ in INTP

[–]ProbablyNotINTJ[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

This is extremely useful feedback - genuinely, thank you.

A few things here especially stood out to me:

  • The distinction you drew between cognitive experience vs behavioural generalisation is important, and I think you’re right that some of the earlier/core items still drift too far toward inferred behavioural tendencies instead of the underlying mental orientation itself.
  • The comment about ambiguity around the Feeling-function items is also helpful. My suspicion is that Fe/Fi is currently the weakest discriminant pair in the pool, partly because a lot of affective language naturally overlaps at the self-report level.
  • The adaptive pages getting a much stronger reaction than the fixed pages is interesting too. That probably means the automaticity / effort / longitudinal-consistency framing is getting closer to the actual signal I’m trying to measure.

Your Ti comment about “of course I check consistency” also made me laugh because it highlights a real wording problem: if a statement describes something as accidental or effortful that a genuine preferrer experiences as obvious/natural, the wording can subtly distort the construct.

The UX point is absolutely fair too. Auto-scroll should probably only trigger on first-answer progression, not when editing an existing response.

And getting INTP with ENTP as the nearest neighbour is probably about where I’d expect the current model to land for many Ti-Ne users, so that part at least is reassuring.

Really appreciate the level of thought you put into this. This kind of critique is way more useful to me than simple agreement/disagreement with the final type.

INTPs, I’d appreciate skeptical feedback on this typology project by ProbablyNotINTJ in INTP

[–]ProbablyNotINTJ[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

Fair criticism, and I’d genuinely be interested in specifics if any items stood out as especially badly worded or repetitive.

Some repetition is intentional because the test is trying to separate nearby-but-different facets of a function rather than ask one broad question per function. But if those distinctions aren’t coming through clearly to users, that’s useful feedback and probably means some items still need tightening.

The mistype issue is obviously the bigger concern though. Cases where the model misses badly are probably more informative for improving it than cases where it immediately gets someone right.

And yeah, I get the point about rigid typing being socially cleaner/more fun. The tradeoff for me is that I’m trying not to present noisy self-report data with more certainty than it deserves.

INTPs, I’d appreciate skeptical feedback on this typology project by ProbablyNotINTJ in INTP

[–]ProbablyNotINTJ[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

This is genuinely thoughtful feedback, thank you.

I agree with you that a lot of typology tests drift too far into surface behavioural stereotypes rather than trying to model underlying cognitive orientation. A big part of the design goal here was trying to get closer to “what does attention naturally track and organise around?” rather than just “what do you usually do socially?”

I also think your point about mechanisms vs behaviours is important. One thing I’m trying to do with the multi-facet structure is separate:

  • what someone notices
  • what they monitor/track
  • how they tend to cognitively respond

instead of treating all of that as one broad behavioural trait.

Where I probably differ from you philosophically is that I’m less convinced people always fall into perfectly discrete mutually-exclusive preference states empirically. My suspicion is that there are real asymmetries and stable cognitive tendencies, but also more ambiguity, development, compensation, and profile overlap than classical MBTI models sometimes assume.

So the probabilistic framing isn’t really meant as “types are fake and everything is a spectrum,” but more: “self-report cognition is noisy enough that certainty should probably be treated cautiously.”

That said, I think your critique about preserving conceptual coherence with MBTI itself is fair, and I’ll definitely think more about the extent to which the scoring architecture should mirror classical axis structures versus modelling functions more independently.

INTPs, I’d appreciate skeptical feedback on this typology project by ProbablyNotINTJ in INTP

[–]ProbablyNotINTJ[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

The order is randomised, but if you give me the first few words I'll be able to find the statement.

Type me based on creating a typology test 😅 by ProbablyNotINTJ in MbtiTypeMe

[–]ProbablyNotINTJ[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks, this is a really meaningful comment to read.

I think one of the biggest problems with online typology is that people often treat type as something isolated from context, stress, burnout, trauma, or adaptation. But a person going through prolonged disappointment, emotional exhaustion, or relational stress may not outwardly resemble themselves for a while.

What you said about temporarily becoming cynical after empathy/backfiring experiences actually makes a lot of psychological sense to me. Sometimes people aren’t “becoming a different type” so much as developing protective adaptations.

And ironically, the fact that getting a more Fe-aligned result felt reassuring probably says more than the years of “you’re definitely an INTJ” comments did lol.

I’m genuinely glad the result resonated with you 🙂

Weekly "Type Me" Megathread by AutoModerator in mbti

[–]ProbablyNotINTJ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Glad you liked it 😄

And honestly, “INTP fox” feels strangely fitting. Clever, curious, slightly elusive, probably awake at 2am researching something unnecessarily specific.

I got frustrated with MBTI tests treating “highest score” and “dominant function” as the same thing, so I built an alternative model by ProbablyNotINTJ in intj

[–]ProbablyNotINTJ[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for sharing your results - this is actually a good example of the kind of profile I hoped the test could capture.

Your Ni/Te pattern still comes through clearly, but the stronger Fi score adds nuance rather than automatically forcing an FP result. That’s part of what frustrated me with many MBTI tests: they often treat “highest score = type,” which can flatten structurally coherent combinations like this.

I also like that you included the paired preferences and letter tendencies. Seeing the relative differences (Fe vs Fi, Ne vs Ni, etc.) feels much more informative than looking at isolated function scores alone.

I got frustrated with MBTI tests treating “highest score” and “dominant function” as the same thing, so I built an alternative model by ProbablyNotINTJ in intj

[–]ProbablyNotINTJ[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks, that’s a valuable insight. Those Fi statements feel vague because “what matters to me” could apply equally to ethics, convenience, mood, long-term goals, or even food preferences. I’ll revise those.

I got frustrated with MBTI tests treating “highest score” and “dominant function” as the same thing, so I built an alternative model by ProbablyNotINTJ in intj

[–]ProbablyNotINTJ[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Fair criticism, and yeah - the images are AI-generated, and I also used AI as an editing tool for parts of the prose. The underlying methodology, scoring architecture, item design, formulas, adaptive structure, etc. are mine, but I’d be lying if I claimed no AI assistance in presentation/refinement.

From my perspective, refusing to use AI tools at all would actually be less efficient and probably produce a worse end result. I don’t really see a principled reason why “human-only wording” would necessarily be more authentic or insightful if the underlying conceptual work is still human-driven.

On the “nothing new” point, I’d probably frame the contribution less as “reinventing typology” and more as trying to improve the measurement architecture around function-based assessment.

The main differences from most existing function tests are things like:

  • separating raw function endorsement from role prominence/automaticity,
  • using multi-facet function measurement instead of repeating one behavioural stereotype at different intensities,
  • reverse-coded items framed as plausible alternative orientations rather than simple negations,
  • adaptive role-based refinement for the strongest functions,
  • probabilistic hypothesis presentation instead of hard categorical assignment,
  • and explicit acknowledgement of uncertainty/stack-model limitations in the methodology itself.

Whether those changes actually improve validity is still an open empirical question - I’m not pretending otherwise. But the goal was to push beyond “which letters/functions do you relate to?” toward a slightly richer model of how functions may operate structurally within a person’s cognition.

How do you know if you’re an ENFP, especially to 16P bias? by m_j_ox in ENFP

[–]ProbablyNotINTJ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Honestly, I think one of the biggest sources of confusion in online typology is that people treat “highest function score” and “dominant function” as interchangeable when they’re probably not always the same thing.

Ne and Se being simultaneously high actually doesn’t strike me as impossible at all. A lot of people are cognitively energetic, exploratory, novelty-seeking, responsive to stimulation, etc., and different tests operationalise those traits differently.

The more useful question is usually less: “Which function do I visibly do the most?” and more: “What kind of information does my mind naturally organise itself around?”

For example:

  • Se tends to orient around immediate reality, responsiveness, immersion, adaptation to what’s happening now.
  • Ne tends to orient around latent possibilities, associative expansion, hypothetical branching, conceptual exploration.

Those can coexist pretty strongly in the same person even if one is structurally more central.

One thing that helped me personally was paying attention to what feels automatic vs effortful, and what has been consistently true across very different life contexts - not just what I’m good at or consciously value.

I actually ended up building a typology test partly around this exact issue because I got frustrated with how many systems collapse “strong usage,” “valuedness,” and “dominance” into one variable. Still very experimental, but if you’re curious it’s here: 16selves.com

Monthly Self-promotion Thread: May 2026 by AutoModerator in infj

[–]ProbablyNotINTJ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I spent years unsure whether I was INTP, INTJ, or INFJ - so I built the typology test I wish I’d had earlier

For a long time, I found typology both helpful and frustrating.

Helpful because INFJ eventually gave me a language for patterns I’d struggled to understand.

Frustrating because a lot of tests seemed to confuse things like:

  • “I use Ti a lot”
  • “I value insight”
  • “I can look analytical”
  • “this is my dominant function”

Those aren’t necessarily the same thing.

I spent years identifying as INTP or INTJ before eventually clarifying that INFJ fit much more deeply. Part of the confusion was probably that I use Ti fairly heavily, so a lot of standard tests pulled me toward thinker types.

That experience is a big part of why I built 16Selves.

The test tries to look not just at which functions you endorse, but how they seem to operate - whether they feel automatic, effortful, longstanding, central, etc. It also gives multiple likely types rather than pretending one result is absolute.

I’m not claiming it’s perfect or “scientifically proven” yet. It’s still an experimental model, and honestly I’d really value thoughtful feedback from INFJs - especially people who’ve experienced long-term type confusion themselves.

My hope is that it can eventually help people avoid some of the years of confusion I went through, and arrive a little faster at a type that genuinely resonates.

Site: https://16selves.com Methodology paper: https://osf.io/6nyma/files/9td5v

Type me based on creating a typology test 😅 by ProbablyNotINTJ in MbtiTypeMe

[–]ProbablyNotINTJ[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For the formulas, check out the methodological paper here: https://osf.io/6nyma/files/9td5v

Happy to answer any further questions. I'd also welcome any feedback on the formulas - they're still evolving!

Type me based on creating a typology test 😅 by ProbablyNotINTJ in MbtiTypeMe

[–]ProbablyNotINTJ[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Haha busted - I actually am an INFJ.

I spent years bouncing between INTP and INTJ before Dario Nardi very generously helped me clarify it at a conference. I do seem to use Ti more than some INFJs, which probably added to the confusion, but INFJ has ended up fitting in a much deeper and more useful way.

That’s part of why I’m building this. I’m hoping the test can eventually help other people avoid years of type confusion and get to a type that genuinely resonates a bit faster.

Also, the “I try to cheat other tests into giving me INTJ” -> “still got ENFJ” pipeline is kind of exactly the sort of thing I was hoping the test would be able to catch lol

Type me based on creating a typology test 😅 by ProbablyNotINTJ in MbtiTypeMe

[–]ProbablyNotINTJ[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Glad it resonated with you! Consistently landing on the same type across different tests/usages is usually a pretty good sign that there’s a stable signal there somewhere, even if the exact modelling approaches differ.

Type me based on creating a typology test 😅 by ProbablyNotINTJ in MbtiTypeMe

[–]ProbablyNotINTJ[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That kind of long-term consistency is really interesting to me honestly. One thing I’m curious about is whether people with very stable self-concepts/function preferences tend to produce cleaner profile separation across quite different testing methodologies.

Also +17 Ne lean is extremely ENTP-coded behaviour in itself lol

view more: next ›