Psychological Surveys

Home Page Forums General Psychology Psychological Surveys

  • Arya
    Participant
    • Type: SeFi
    • Development: l---
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    I’m guessing I failed most of the Se questions because I tend to be pretty focused on winning at whatever I’m doing and don’t really bounce around much. Very honed in usually.

    Edit: accidentally left two replies because my internet is being shit.

     

    • This reply was modified 2 months, 1 week ago by Arya.
    • This reply was modified 2 months, 1 week ago by Arya.
    Alexander the Less
    Participant
    • Type: NeFi
    • Development: llll
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    Survey Results with Note

    Firstly, here are my results from my second, well-thought-out responses to the survey. The results are similar to my first go, so I don’t feel I skewed anything dramatically. However, I will happily post my old results upon request.

    Alexander's Results of Energetics Survey

    Reflections

    Perhaps it’s my long-windedness itching for space, but I feel compelled to make a quick comment on CT as a system and what this step with psychological surveys means (and of course, the introduction of Model 2), and of course, I would love to get more thoughts from both the community and Auburn on this topic.

    Cognitive Type is, from my perspective, refreshing. It doesn’t concern itself with arbitrary, subjective self-evaluation to assign someone a type. I’m glad that the introduction of the psychological survey come as a separate element of typing, for as it is said on the site, “The survey results won’t be viewed by us until after we have done your visual analysis.” This eliminates my concern that CT could revise itself and too-highly prioritize self-evaluation, for I have approached and understood CT as something primarily concerned with vultology as the observable element of cognition (embodied cognition) and then collecting survey data to flesh out the correlations between vultology, behavior, and psychology. I would say the introduction of computational terms and the psychological survey is an incredibly comforting step in the right direction for keying in the research methodology of CT. I’ll end my quick reflections with this quote and my response:

    The data collection thus far has been imperfect, and suffers from methodological shortcomings. The data has not been collected and processed through all the appropriate scientific practices, nor has there been any formal publications yet supporting this hypothesis. However, preparations are being made to formally test this hypothesis.

    I find that last bit incredibly encouraging, and I think that further marching in this direction will add a level of academic rigor to CT that will give it the weight necessary to break the glass ceiling in academia that keeps independent researchers from publishing and making meaningful contributions to a given field.

    Criticism and Suggestions

    Alright, as the original disclaimer makes apparent, this survey is a work in progress. I’ll offer some comments and thoughts on the survey and the data collection.

    First, something with the potential to be a huge problem; however, only Auburn can really confirm whether or not this is a problem. That problem is the definitions of the functions and how those definitions have come about. I’ll explain myself at the risk of coming off as pedantic.
    As I said in the reflection section of this post, CT concerns itself with the observable element, vultology, as this is the only objective element of cognition (according to the hypothesis behind CT). Here’s where I see the potential problems with how functions (Ji, Je, Pe, and Pi. Excuse me if a better term exists, such as “energetics.” Just know I refer to these when I say “functions” in this post) are defined. This survey suggests that a firm definition and understanding of the functions exists; however, this is a relatively huge claim. I would argue that CT needs an enormous pool of data in order to distribute this survey and claim a match or mismatch. The survey presumes the correlation between anecdotal accounts of personal experience/behavior and vultological samples is vast and strong enough to give firm definitions of functions. Again, only Auburn can make the call that the data is sufficient to draw that correlation and offer definitions of the functions that are firm enough to implement metrics in this survey to measure their presence in an individual’s self-evaluated psychology/behavior. However, I will add, this research could still work by starting with a hypothesis of what each function is and adapting as correlations indicate something else (if indeed anything else is indicated, as there is always the possibility that the initial hypothesis falls through). In fact, I would say this is the approach CT is taking (which is more expedient and practical for independent research of this nature, as it offers enough meat for those first volunteers to cling to and invest in the project); however, I would say that persisting in this fashion could prove messy. What is worse, and prone to happen when a community forms around a project, is that the definitions of functions may careen into sentimental territory as subjects cling to definitions that were hypotheses that have since been deemed defunct, invalid, or even misleading.

    Second, I turn my attention to the survey itself. I’m certainly not the ideal person to weigh in on this element, but I have designed a research survey for academic institutions as well as worked with individuals that have designed them. Here’s hoping what I have to say carries some value. I took some raw notes here that record my unfiltered thoughts as I worked through the survey, and those can be seen in this Google Doc. However, I prefer you ignore my messy thoughts for the purposes of actual criticism, but I do prefer those messy notes be used for the purpose of contributing to the corpus psychological/behavior data. That said, I’ll just knock this out with some bullet points that summarize my observations of shortcomings in the survey and personal experiences that caused me to view these things as short comings (please excuse me for not recording the question numbers. It slipped my mind while taking notes):

    • A few questions group together two premises that conflict.
      • Ex. Pairing the voluntary taking on responsibility and holding oneself to high standards as a single indicator of a psychological function.
        • Personal Experience: I do not find myself feeling fulfilled by taking on responsibility, but I do hold myself to higher standards…. However, that is only fulfilling if I manage to meet the higher standards I hold myself to. Holding myself to them in and of itself is not fulfilling without seeing myself live up to them. In some respects, I feel the same about responsibility… I just wouldn’t consciously seek it out.
      • Ex. Fixating on purity and struggling to act impurely.
        • Personal Experience: I fixate on purity; however, I find myself behaving impurely a great deal (perhaps due to those high standards I hold myself to). This is a source of stress for me, for I am fixated yet failing to align with my fixation. However, I admit, this question may be focused on how well the individual aligns with that fixation, i.e. the struggling to act against it. That I cannot comment on; however, I will comment that I found myself needing to choose what my answer prioritized: emphasizing my fixation or emphasizing my actions.
      • To avoid just chronicling examples, I will say this: I think questions that present two (or more) premises that could conflict ought to be presented as multiple questions in order to target more specific data. As an example: 1) Do you take on greater responsibility to seek personal fulfillment? 2) Do hold yourself to high standards? or 1) Do you often consider whether or not you are living/acting purely? 2) Do you succeed in meeting your standard of purity/righteousness?
    • Wording at times is troubling.
      • Ex. “I need my life to have…”
        • I’m hesitant to say I need anything. In fact, the word “need” is emphasized in my in my mind to the point that I am tempted to disagree despite the fact that I have a great desire for the mentioned conditions.
      • Ex. “Procedural thinking” and “economics and business.”
        • This could go in the last category, but I think it is primarily a wording issue. I word it better in my notes, as I had numerous concerns here: “How is procedural thinking understood in this question? Business and economics in this wording seem like the emphasis, and I have never invested any energy into either. Is success in economics and business supposed to be the emphasis or is that the concrete example to illustrate procedural thinking? My answer is either strongly agree or disagree depending on the emphasis.
      • I outline a few, such as “child-like humor” and so on. There’s just a good deal of interpretation that goes on with some wordings.
    • Asking what others think of the subject
      • Ex. “People describe me as a steady pillar in their lives.”
      • Ex. “People have told me that I can come across as pushy and bossy.”
      • Ex. “People come to me for the dependability of my perspective, in order to recieve [sic] stable and temperate advice.”
        • I’ve always found these questions terrible. It asks the subject to make an ultimately subjective recall of subjective comments others in their lives have made about them. It muddies the waters and causes the evaluation process for the subject to become needlessly convoluted.
        • These could be fixed by asking questions that focus on self-assessment. “Do you consider yourself a steady pillar in the lives of others?” “Would you are prone to treating others in a pushy or bossy manner?” “Do you consider yourself someone with a dependable perspective that allows you to give stable and temperate advice to others?”

    Conclusion. Yes, I’m done…. Yes, that was a bit scattered…. But at least I’m done.

    I believe that sufficiently lays out my thoughts and concerns spurred on by taking this survey. Perhaps some of my thoughts belong elsewhere; however, it’s this survey that brought it all to the forefront of my mind. By all means, I encourage everyone who feels compelled to maintain order to mention me in a reply in the appropriate thread.

    Bera
    Moderator
    • Type: SeFi
    • Development: ll--
    • Attitude: Seelie

    @Alexander the Less

    A few questions group together two premises that conflict.

    Ex. Pairing the voluntary taking on responsibility and holding oneself to high standards as a single indicator of a psychological function.Personal Experience: I do not find myself feeling fulfilled by taking on responsibility, but I do hold myself to higher standards…. However, that is only fulfilling if I manage to meet the higher standards I hold myself to. Holding myself to them in and of itself is not fulfilling without seeing myself live up to them. In some respects, I feel the same about responsibility… I just wouldn’t consciously seek it out.

    I totally agree with this one ! I would have said I strongly agree with some statements but then I actually strongly agreed with one part of them and not at all with the other. So I had to say I disagree.

    I will give the first example that pops up.

    I like to explore uncharted territories, even when that means flirting with danger.

    I do love to explore new places/ideas. But I don’t like to flirt with danger. I think Pe is simply shown by the first part. I don’t think disagreeing with the second part makes you less of a high Pe user,

    Let’s see another one…

    I’m a natural born leader and often find myself in management positions.

    I actually was and somewhat still am in a management position at work (counseling/managerial, let’s say, it’s not very clearly cut but counseling itself would be seen as JePi ground anyway) and I also have a small and unprofitable etsy business. I would have answered agree to the second part but I am obviously not a natural born leader, I worked a lot to improve these qualities and am still working to improve them.

    So, here the issue is people who developed Je in time may not feel they are “natural born leaders” at all. Because they were not born with it, they developed it. They can remember being bullied as kids or being treated badly by bosses and coworkers for years without knowing how to deal with it BEFORE they did reach a management position. So, they will answer strongly disagree even though maybe at this point they do have conscious Je and even have a management position !

    Next, since I am at it :

    My pursuit for a personal identity that matches me best has taken me far from my starting culture and background.

    Here I can say :

    – I do care about my personal identity;

    – I am right now pretty far from my starting culture and background. My lifestyle and interests are far from it, at least.

    – I have been pursuing something that led me here, but that something is not necessarily my identity. It is knowledge, understanding. I wanted to understand what’s going on, how the world works, what is truly valuable, what isn’t.

    So I can’t answer “strongly agree” to this question, because my pursuit appears to not be primarily for identity, but I would need to examine myself a lot to be able to tell if this is perfectly correct, since the inner and outer world mirror each other, hence every pursuit could be seen as a pursuit for identity. Seeing how the world works implies seeing how you work, as you are part of the world and the image of the world is inside your mind. The opposite too, since what you perceive is pretty much influenced by your inner world. Hence knowing yourself will make you know the world. Then when I say I wanted to know what is truly valuable, this implies I wanted to know what is truly valuable to me. Hence, even if it is all put in a general and open way, it could be argued I am talking about a search for identity.

    But at a first glimpse, you can’t see these nuances. And even if you did, some ambiguity remains.

    How could an Si lead with conscious Fi answer this one, just to give an example. What if you both value background and identity? What if you find identity IN your background?

    I also agree with the point about asking what others think.

    People come to me for the dependability of my perspective, in order to recieve stable and temperate advice.

    They do come but I am not sure why they come. 🙂 I think I agreed with this one, because I believe my advice is stable and temperate. BUT I don’t know if others come for this reason. Maybe they think the advice I give is revolutionary and original. :)) I can’t know why they come for advice, really.

    Just some ideas, maybe I have more later. 🙂

    • This reply was modified 2 months, 1 week ago by Bera.
    • This reply was modified 2 months, 1 week ago by Bera.
    • This reply was modified 2 months, 1 week ago by Bera.
    • This reply was modified 2 months, 1 week ago by Bera.
    • This reply was modified 2 months, 1 week ago by Bera.
    • This reply was modified 2 months, 1 week ago by Bera.
    • This reply was modified 2 months, 1 week ago by Bera.
    • This reply was modified 2 months, 1 week ago by Bera.
    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    I like these notes @alexandertheless !

    I think they summarize the core issues with wording quite well, and give me a sense of direction for how to tweak the questions. 🙂

    Especially the part about making sure the questions are only targeting one thing, and also the part about removing “People say I…” wordings.

    I’m really enjoying this feedback from everyone, and learning a lot about proper survey structures.

    Thanks so much for these notes.

    edit: I have to switch gears to another project for the time being, so I won’t be able to implement these changes right away. But in the meantime, if anyone with spare time wanted to put together a word doc with these 40 questions, and their updated versions, according to the input of this thread, that would be amazing and so helpful. If not that’s okay too. 🙂 I just gotta tend to other matters + aspects of the theory before returning to this.

    • This reply was modified 2 months, 1 week ago by Auburn.
    Starshade
    Participant
    • Type: NeFi
    • Development: ll-l
    • Attitude: Seelie

     

    I took the test again, after a few days, and this result lines up, perfectly with classic MBTI scores for me, and is quite typical of me. So it fits.

    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    @lautrec TiNe

     

    Faex
    Participant
    • Type: NeFi
    • Development: ll--
    • Attitude: Seelie

    Just popped in to post my survey results. (They line up with my official MBTI scores for me too: INFP).
    CT Psych Survey Results

    • This reply was modified 2 months, 1 week ago by Faex.
    • This reply was modified 2 months, 1 week ago by Faex.
    Mystic Thriver
    Participant
    • Type: SeFi
    • Development: l-l-
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    Reporting in (for science)

    Keso
    Participant
    • Type: NeFi
    • Development: lll-
    • Attitude: Seelie

    I doubt Ji being so low, tho. Others are on point.

    • Type: FiNe
    • Development: l---
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    Pokomonka
    Participant
    • Type: FiSe
    • Development: l---
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    Alice
    Participant
    • Type: FiSe
    • Development: ll--
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    I couldn’t figure out how to screenshot stuff on my chromebook, but here’s the results in text format –

    Pe: 6.5 / 12.5   [++++++——]
    Ji: 4.75 / 12.5  [+++++——- ]
    Je: 4 / 12.5        [++++——–  ]
    Pi: 3.75 / 12.5  [++++——–  ]

    • This reply was modified 2 weeks, 1 day ago by Alice.
    • This reply was modified 2 weeks, 1 day ago by Alice.
    synthek
    Participant
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l---
    • Attitude: Adaptive

Viewing 13 posts - 31 through 43 (of 43 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

© Copyright 2012-2020 J.E. Sandoval
SEE HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION

DISCLAIMER

The content on this site is not
intended for medical advice, diagnosis,
or treatment. Always seek the advice
of your physician or other qualified
health provider with questions you
may have regarding a medical condition.
For more information visit this link.

SHARE: FACEBOOK, SUPPORT: PATREON