8 Question Test Results and Discussion

On March 9, 2006 I announced the creation of my first socionics test. Since then till now (May 23rd) 67 people have taken the test and provided their e-mails to receive their test results. Now it's time to draw conclusions and work on improving the test, or throw it out. You can view the questions and response tallies here.

Test concept
This test was based on the idea that different types will respond differently to different kinds of assistance offered by other people. I described eight kinds of assistance that were intended to align with the eight information elements. Theoretically, one would expect people to readily accept assistance related to their Super-id functions and readily offer assistance related to their Ego functions.

Type distribution results
Based on where respondents selected the answer "No thanks, I take care of this fine on my own and can help others", which was supposed to correspond to respondents' strong functions, we get the following distribution of test respondents:

There was a strong preference for intuition over sensing and for logic over ethics.

Based on what assistance respondents answered they would "gladly accept on a regular basis," we can say that sensing assistance was preferred over intuitive (68.6% vs. 31.4%), and irrational over rational (60.9% vs. 39.1%).

Based on what assistance respondents answered "would annoy [them] or make [them] self-conscious," we can say that rational assistance was found more annoying than irrational (67.7% vs. 32.3%), and ethical more than logical (61.5% vs. 38.5%).

How much this data reflects the actual type distribution of respondents is debatable. Socionists generally place little value in individual test results, but find the overall statistical patterns useful for analysis.

Criticism of test

Although the test was short and elegant, it had a number of weaknesses that came out over time:

1. Each "kind of assistance" actually contained two or more parts which could be assessed differently by respondents, e.g. "Assistance keeping relaxed, healthy, and active, and help experiencing aesthetic enjoyment and creating comfort in your surroundings". Do all these kinds of assistance necessarily fall into the same category in respondents' minds? This problem could be resolved by breaking each question into two or more questions.
2. Some respondents found the kinds of assistance mentioned too abstract and general.
3. The test allowed for conflicting results that produced a "don't know" answer rather than the usual dichotomy-based tests that always produce a preference for one pole over the other.
4. The test required human interpretation and cannot be easily mechanized because of its complex interpretive formula.
5. Some kinds of assistance were not formulated well enough and produced a bias. Most notably, the formulation of extraverted sensing ("Assistance taking decisive action and overcoming obstacles, and help maintaining the motivation necessary to do what needs to be done despite any reservations") was found unduly attractive by respondents.
6. Finally, the vague nature of the questions allowed for a large degree of individual interpretation that became apparent when discussing the reasons for certain replies with individual respondents. However, the test becomes useful when respondents explain each of their answers.

Conclusions

I will probably work on developing a new test altogether, perhaps with elements of this one, but probably with a more standard and unambiguous structure that will allow for mechanical interpretation.

Feel free to send me additional feedback on the test.