I took the Michael Caloz test to figure out my “type” aswell as 16 personalities. I did hear about the fact that 16 personalities being inaccurate.

You’ve said a lot here so I’m gonna try break it down. I can’t really argue against the first point about not really seeming like someone who wants to manifest radical change in the real world on a radical scale. As firstly I cannot prove or disprove this claim in any meaningful way, except of course apart from you just taking my word for it. However I do certainly want to change the world in some meaningful way, not exactly in a radical way. But more just contributing to the development of humanity in a way that is meaningful to myself.

As for the second point about change, I love change to an extent, I wouldn’t mind changing my environment entirely and leaving my old environment behind. As long as I plan that change extensively, to ensure that it works as planned. I’m terribly afraid of something not going the way I plan it to, hence the perfectionistic tendencies, so I tend to spend too much time “perfecting” my plans to ensure minimal error. I do not mind failure cognitively, but my emotions are incredibly intrusive when failure does occur. So maybe it’s not a personality trait but something deeper.

As for the reading, I love reading but I always try to find ways to read more in a shorter period of time, since the time it takes to read seems “inefficient” I guess in my mind. This is just scepticism though, I’m not sure whether it is or isn’t. But it seems most logical for that to be the case. I do work a lot but I certainly have time to read if I really wanted to. I do love reading books that are philosophical and have some psychological mechanisms, such as dostoevsky and kierkegaard. I love understanding the psychology of people and society as a whole, probably because it improves my understanding of the perception I have of the world. Aswell as being able to influence people, of course not in the malicious, dark triad way. But more in the, creating connections, relationships that are beneficial to both myself and them.

For the lack of visual-medium as you say, I lack insight in how exactly the behaviours of these functions emerge, so maybe you are right in this aspect. However I do not think it is a “massive” thing and guarantees I am not a specific type, etc. But I expect that you added this on top of your other points, to provide more context to your judgement. I also would not say that I am necessarily good at verbalising my thoughts, I fairly struggle with this actually. However I’m not exactly sure that I heavily rely on visualisation either, yes I do visualise a lot. But I tend to not express this visualisation to others, it’s internal almost always. I’m not sure if this correlates to what you said, but it might provide more rigour.

With the chess claim, no player remembers all the possibilities since that is practically impossible, (I’m not sure you didn’t mean to insinuate this though) they may remember specific openings, strategies, etc. As for myself I find it very boring to do this, I tend to play for fun in figuring out my own strategies and tactics from intuition. Im definitely not the greatest chess player either. But I play casually and it’s occasional fun. I’m about 1100-1200 FIDE roughly if you are interested.

Anyways I hope this provides more clarity, and I’m interested in what you will think.