What is, in your opinion, the best free MBTI test to take?

[neya]

Hi! So I have been interested in typology for some time now, but I never truly felt comfortable with what MBTI I was given, and am still unable to type myself based on information about the types.
So I was wondering what you guys think is the most accurate/best MBTI test to take to get typed as accurately as possible?

 

[neya]

bump

 

[Wyote]

am still unable to type myself based on information about the types.

What seems to be the problem?

 

[Ren]

Hi! So I have been interested in typology for some time now, but I never truly felt comfortable with what MBTI I was given, and am still unable to type myself based on information about the types.
So I was wondering what you guys think is the most accurate/best MBTI test to take to get typed as accurately as possible?

No test is really accurate. Have you looked into the cognitive functions?

 

[Enso]

No test is really accurate. Have you looked into the cognitive functions?

It's kind of funny because two concepts are merged in that statement

Tests (logical rational statistically proven) and Jungian concepts (partially provable or unprovable concepts)

Tests can easily be analysed with factor analysis to show whether statements on a particular test are related, accurate and predictable using stats. I recall a Pearson psych text book claiming that some of the MBTI tests were highly reliable, yet most people still emphasised to go by the cognitive functions that Jung clearly pulled from his Ni.

I agree overall, to me the most simplest way to type is to read a description of each attribute - sensing is ...., intuition is ..... then narrow it down. Basically I find it funny that even though there are MBTI tests that are backed up by factor analysis people are basically saying... well just go with the Ni, what does it feel like to you? It makes sense, the unconscious is called unconscious for a reason it's not fully of rational logical thinking but feely, hunchy abstractions and mythology. Go with your gut I guess.

Anyway just a ramble. I guess I could see some INTJ's on here making a counterargument.

 

[Ren]

I recall a Pearson psych text book claiming that some of the MBTI tests were highly reliable, yet most people still emphasised to go by the cognitive functions that Jung clearly pulled from his Ni.

And what, dear sir, is wrong with Jung pulling the cognitive functions from his Ni? Stephen Hawking also pulled from his Ni the intuition that black holes emitted radiation. Isaac Newton pulled from his Ni the theory of gravitation, the "spooky action at a distance" reinterpreted by Einstein as a curving of spacetime. There is nothing particularly mystical about Ni; it's just a cognitive function operating a certain way.

As for the tests, they must have in-built definitions of the functions integrated in their code, otherwise they're not mapping onto Jungian types at all but onto their dichotomous and rather empty equivalents. So whatever slipperiness comes with the functions is actually going to be inherited by the tests, and made worse because simplified according to batteries of invisible assumptions.

Just to reference my thankfully small family, the magical tests have returned INTP for my INFP brother; ISFJ for my ISFP mother; INTP for myself (INFJ); and probably ENTJ for a lot of Ennea 3 world-domination wanabees. These results certainly accurately reflect something about our self-perception; but not what our types are.

But if you know the true special test that truthfully offers the Truth and only the Truth, please share it with us! It would protect us from the likes of CS Joseph...

 

[Asa]

It's kind of funny because two concepts are merged in that statement

Tests (logical rational statistically proven) and Jungian concepts (partially provable or unprovable concepts)

Tests can easily be analysed with factor analysis to show whether statements on a particular test are related, accurate and predictable using stats. I recall a Pearson psych text book claiming that some of the MBTI tests were highly reliable, yet most people still emphasised to go by the cognitive functions that Jung clearly pulled from his Ni.

I agree overall, to me the most simplest way to type is to read a description of each attribute - sensing is ...., intuition is ..... then narrow it down. Basically I find it funny that even though there are MBTI tests that are backed up by factor analysis people are basically saying... well just go with the Ni, what does it feel like to you? It makes sense, the unconscious is called unconscious for a reason it's not fully of rational logical thinking but feely, hunchy abstractions and mythology. Go with your gut I guess.

Anyway just a ramble. I guess I could see some INTJ's on here making a counterargument.

Step back for a sec and remember MBTI is based on Jungian theory.

 

[Enso]

As for the tests, they must have in-built definitions of the functions integrated in their code, otherwise they're not mapping onto Jungian types at all but onto their dichotomous and rather empty equivalents. So whatever slipperiness comes with the functions is actually going to be inherited by the tests, and made worse because simplified according to batteries of invisible assumptions.

True, the Factor analysis would start with items based on cognitive functions. Find 100 confirmed INFJ's with a certain test or multiple, put each MBTI test item into the software "I often enjoy being alone" etc etc x however many items. Software finds the abstract underlying factor correlation to each item based on statistics - they are known as factor loadings. Factor loads are extracted and test items with low correlations to the abstract factor are removed. Then you end up with say 70 test items (or however many) that highly correlate with INFJ, this test is then compared to previous tests and probably highly correlates with a known MBTI test. So then, this is pure calculated statistics.

But if you know the true special test that truthfully offers the Truth and only the Truth, please share it with us! It would protect us from the likes of CS Joseph...

My point is reliability I guess, if you tell someone who has no clue if they have Ni or Si that "go with your gut after reading a few descriptions" which I think is along the lines of what you were hinting at (not trying to put words in your mouth) then it's going to be far more reliable using the test. Viewed from a different type say ISTP or ISTJ they will argue to use the test any day of the week. I'm kinda just pointing out Ni bias amongst Ni's and just poking fun at psychology in general

 

[John K]

True, the Factor analysis would start with items based on cognitive functions. Find 100 confirmed INFJ's with a certain test or multiple, put each MBTI test item into the software "I often enjoy being alone" etc etc x however many items. Software finds the abstract underlying factor correlation to each item based on statistics - they are known as factor loadings. Factor loads are extracted and test items with low correlations to the abstract factor are removed. Then you end up with say 70 test items (or however many) that highly correlate with INFJ, this test is then compared to previous tests and probably highly correlates with a known MBTI test. So then, this is pure calculated statistics.

The only way such an analysis would work is if, included in the calculation, there is an independent way of assessing and confirming the individual's type, otherwise all the maths is doing is testing how close the individuals are to each other in the way they answer the questions, and whether there are any correlations within the questions that link them together and reduce the degrees of freedom in the data.

But no questionnaire is going to be very accurate because it's not simply a matter of how well the questions are formulated in terms of the types - but because people don't answer them accurately. There are many reasons for this. People have sincere beliefs about their own behaviour for example that their SO would laugh out of court. Another reason is that we all tend to take on the colour of our social environment - if you take a test as part of a company training exercise, which I did originally, you will tend to drift towards the typological norms for that company in the way you answer, which was INTx in my company. A further reason why they aren't accurate is when you know quite a bit about MBTI and can relate the questions (consciously or unconsciously) to the types and orientations they are exploring - it's very much harder for the people who formulate questionnaires to compensate for this than to test folks who know nothing about it. Another: that with only 16 different MBTI types and an infinite variety of people personalities, many folks won't neatly fit into any one of them - there will be a closest match type for us all, but for some of us there won't be any of them that feel obviously dead right. Finally, many folks are driven away from their primary functions by the way they are raised, and have a lot of difficulty later in life in reclaiming it, if at all. This is like the left handed kids who used to be forced to use their right hands in infancy and childhood. It's a particular problem for more sensitive types like INFx if they are raised by inflexible and overwhelming xSTJ parents for example.

Sorting out the best way to go really depends on why you want to know your type. Assuming a good fit doesn't come easy - so, if it's just curiosity, then I'd suggest trying a wide range of different questionnaires and take the type that comes up most frequently as your working model. If it's for personal development and realisation, then there's no getting around it, you can use the tests as a starting point, but then to find your best fit type you really have to learn the conceptual basis for it, and get a feel for the way it works in depth. Even better is then to try it out in the field by observing yourself and other folks, and by experimenting with the behaviours that go with what you think are your preferred functions. In this regard it's like learning to swim - you don't get very far on paper, or online, and have to get in the water and take your feet off the bottom.