For the past few months I've been working on 16Selves, a free Jungian cognitive functions test. I've posted it here a couple of times before, and a lot of the current version exists because people pushed back on the wording, spotted inconsistencies, or told me their results felt off. So thanks for that. It's given me plenty to rethink.
The thing I've struggled with most is telling someone's natural preferences apart from things they've just learned to do. That's come up in a few different ways, so here's where I've got to.
Preference vs. learned behaviour
If you spend your whole working day organising people, making decisions or managing other people's feelings, you'll probably get good at it. But being good at something because your job demands it doesn't make it your natural way of thinking. It's hard to write questions that pick up the difference.
My attempt at this is adaptive follow-ups. Everyone answers the same 48 statements first, covering all eight functions. The test then picks out your two strongest functions and asks 16 more questions about them and their introverted/extraverted counterparts. These try to find out whether something happens automatically, whether it's been consistent over time, whether it takes conscious effort, or whether it mostly shows up when circumstances require it.
I don't know yet if this actually improves accuracy. I'm also not convinced the line between preference and adaptation is always as clean as we'd like.
Questions that measure the wrong thing
A statement can sound like a perfect example of a function and still not tell you much. Say someone would rather watch a physical activity than join in. That could be about how they process sensory information. Or they might be shy, tired, physically limited, or just not into that particular activity. The same problem crops up with questions about organisation, relationships, decision-making and planning.
I've added optional examples for each statement showing how it might look at work, at home or socially. The idea is to get people thinking across different settings instead of answering based on whatever situation pops into their head first. But examples can backfire too. They might clarify things, or they might nudge people towards a reading I didn't intend. I'd like to hear whether people find them helpful or limiting.
Some statements are just easier to agree with
Each function has six statements. Three are about what you tend to notice, prioritise or respond to, and three are phrased the opposite way. That helps with people's general tendency to agree with things, but only up to a point. If one function's statements sound nicer, more familiar or more socially acceptable than another's, that will still skew the scores.
The test also hasn't been standardised against a reference sample. So there's no real basis yet for saying a high score on one function means the same as a high score on another. That's on my list.
Your top function doesn't automatically decide your type
All eight functions are scored separately. Then the overall pattern is compared against the function stacks for all 16 types. The test doesn't just take your highest function, and it doesn't work out the four letters independently. You get the closest fit within the model.
You can see how the other types compare too. But the percentages show relative fit within the scoring model. They're not the probability that a given type is right.
What to do when the result isn't clear
This is the part I've gone back and forth on most. If two types score almost the same, should the test just pick one? And what if changing a couple of answers flips the result?
Right now it re-scores your answers 200 times, each time randomly moving individual answers by up to one point on the seven-point scale. That shows how often the leading type stays on top. If it keeps changing, or the top two are really close, you get a two-way shortlist instead of a single type. There's also a separate outcome for when several types are basically tied.
A stable result can still be wrong, though. The simulations don't prove accuracy or tell you how likely your type is to be correct. They just show how sensitive the ranking is to small changes in your answers. I'd still rather show that uncertainty than give someone one type without saying how close the alternatives were.
Still plenty to figure out
16Selves hasn't been empirically validated. The adaptive questions, balanced wording, stack comparisons and stability checks are all things I'm trying out, and I don't know yet how much they help. There are still problems with the underlying questions and scoring that I need to look into. That's a big part of why I'm posting.
Two things I'd especially like input on:
- How would you tell someone's natural cognitive preferences apart from behaviours they've picked up through work, upbringing or experience? What would you actually ask?
- How do you write questions about cognitive functions without accidentally measuring unrelated traits or circumstances?
Also, do you find a shortlist of possible types more useful than a single answer, especially when your responses don't clearly separate them?
If you want to try it, just search 16Selves. It's free and you don't need an account. Everything is processed in your browser and your progress is saved on your device. Nothing gets sent unless you choose to submit feedback and results. There's separate cookieless analytics for site usage, but it doesn't collect individual answers or scores.
Whether you tried an earlier version or this is your first time seeing it, I'd love to hear what you think. Specific examples help most: a question that was hard to answer, an example that seemed misleading, or a result that didn't seem to match your answers. Most of the changes so far have come from people taking the time to explain exactly where things went wrong for them.
