|#1 You would rather sugarcoat a problem than upset someone.|
|#2 You find it difficult to concentrate on a single subject.|
|#3 You see the world as a bundle of possibilities waiting to be explored.|
|#4 You like to organize things for pleasure.|
|#5 You are attracted to symbolism, mysticism and the unknown.|
|#6 You greatly value tradition and duty.|
|#7 You are a risk-taker.|
|#8 You live in the present, not the past or the future.|
|#9 You may be seen as reckless and unknowingly hurt those around you.|
|#10 You value truth and logic more than anything else.|
|#11 You always try to communicate tactfully with people.|
|#12 You have trouble communicating with those who do not think like you.|
|#13 You see the big picture in a sea of details.|
|#14 You become upset when your care for others goes unappreciated.|
|#15 You greatly value social harmony and often go out of your way to maintain it.|
|#16 You stay true to yourself.|
|#17 You generally work through problems with others and involve yourself with other people to arrive at a conclusion.|
|#18 You easily recognize internal bodily sensations and act to suit your body's needs.|
|#19 You try to help people to the point where you begin to forget taking care of your own needs.|
|#20 You may be described as ditzy or scatterbrained.|
|#21 You consider yourself a practical and realistic person, free from imagination.|
|#22 You streamline existing systems for the sake of efficiency and productivity.|
|#23 You imagine things that aren't directly connected to the real world.|
|#24 You constantly set yourself on goals and objectives.|
|#25 You often use analogies and similes to communicate new ideas.|
|#26 You may be viewed as selfish or self-centered.|
|#27 You can easily think of something random to say.|
|#28 You express yourself honestly and authentically.|
|#29 You would do whatever it takes to win a debate.|
|#30 You easily sympathize with others' struggles.|
|#31 You take on subjects with a burning interest only to drop them once they no longer feel new to you.|
|#32 You live in the "here and now."|
|#33 You are drawn to the new, novel, and original.|
|#34 You trust hard facts and data more than anything else.|
|#35 You have trouble communicating your ideas with people.|
|#36 You have an uncanny ability of recognizing others' needs.|
|#37 You are fiercely individualistic and pride yourself on your uniqueness.|
|#38 You are a brainstormer: you offer a multitude of different ideas in a given situation.|
|#39 You absorb information from the outside world without additional processing.|
|#40 You follow a consistent routine.|
|#41 You have an eye for aesthetics and "enjoy the finer things in life."|
|#42 You have a tendency to go off-topic in conversation.|
|#43 You are an excellent problem solver and have an incredible ability to analyze things in depth.|
|#44 You place a great amount of trust in the mysterious and unconscious world.|
|#45 You consider yourself an organized person and take control of situations before they get out of hand.|
|#46 You believe your presence is greatly felt in a room.|
|#47 You are often the first to react to a question.|
|#48 You are able to manipulate conversations by reading others' body language.|
|#49 You prefer living in your dreams to living in the real world.|
|#50 You are aware of your surroundings and aren't likely to miss something right in front of you.|
|#51 You are blunt and straight-to-the-point in communication.|
|#52 You are unnerved by uncertainty and the unknown.|
|#53 You may be viewed as "meddling" or "controlling" to others.|
|#54 You are skilled at recognizing whether the details in front of you match what you are used to.|
|#55 You are extremely objective and "tell it as it is."|
|#56 You have an excellent sense of direction and instantly know your way around a new place.|
|#57 You modify internal logical frameworks to account for new data, and you sometimes find yourself re-evaluating them when new data is incompatible with it.|
|#58 You rely on external sources to support your argument.|
|#59 You tend to express sympathy only after you empathize with someone.|
|#60 You believe that arriving at a truth is more important than winning an argument.|
|#61 You thrive on new and exciting experiences.|
|#62 You work through problems by yourself and detach yourself from other people to arrive at a conclusion.|
|#63 You may be viewed as "fake" or "manipulative" to others.|
|#64 You feel as though you are one of the only truly nice people left in this world.|
|#65 You have been consistently logical throughout your life.|
|#66 You are described as "stuck in your ways."|
|#67 You cannot help but get hung up on small details.|
|#68 You feel as though your insights often go misunderstood.|
|#69 You start many different projects, but you finish few.|
|#70 You frequently have hunches or insights about the future that turn out to be correct.|
|#71 You often arrive at conclusions that seem to come out of nowhere; you relate to "realizing" answers.|
|#72 You become stubborn and resolute in the face of opposition when it comes to your personal beliefs.|
|#73 You explore things in depth for purely for the sake of exploring them in depth.|
|#74 You sometimes fail to adapt to new data because it is not consistent with your personal understanding of an idea.|
|#75 You feel a strong sense of unity when communicating with others in a group.|
|#76 You often feel awkward and aimless during leisure time.|
|#77 You often use metaphors to communicate new ideas.|
|#78 You come up with internal logical frameworks, theories, and systems to describe the world around you.|
|#79 You have a strict internal moral code that comes from within regardless of any external standards.|
|#80 You dislike change.|
|#81 You exude charisma and are usually viewed as charming by others.|
|#82 You rely only on past experiences to guide yourself through the present.|
|#83 You have a strong tendency to see things as either good or bad.|
|#84 You are drawn toward the abstract and often obsess over meanings.|
|#85 You "just know" things without being able to consciously put them into words.|
|#86 You relate present experiences back to past experiences.|
|#87 Fake people bother you.|
|#88 Generally, you would prefer a solution be thorough before putting it into action (at the cost of time).|
|#89 You may be viewed as whiny and/or depressive.|
|#90 You find yourself agreeing with those who claim that the ends justify the means.|
|#91 You place a lot of value on details and past experiences.|
|#92 You would question anything.|
|#93 You value inclusion and try your best to involve everyone in a group.|
|#94 You see so many possibilities that you have trouble committing to a single one.|
|#95 You understand a concept by logically recognizing and drawing patterns between different, already known concepts.|
|#96 You are hesitant to strictly conform to social roles.|
frequently asked questions (updated 2018/11/14)
What is the Grant-Brownsword function model?
In 1983, William Harold Grant, along with Magdala Thompson and Thomas E. Clarke, authored a book relating Jungian personality types to the Gospel by correlating Biblical themes to Jung's functions. Titled From Image to Likeness: A Jungian Path in the Gospel Journey, the main purpose of this book was to encourage the reader to understand the importance and the meaning of "God's image" and how to evoke it within you on a journey from image to likeness. But this work contained a tidbit that would come to shape typology today: a new psychological model.
Grant dubbed it the third major model, highlighting how it "views Jung's functions and attitudes on the basis of a developmental typology." This model was based on their observations from several hundred people involved in their retreats and workshops (frequently referenced as "R/W" throughout their preface) along with thousands of students from two universities; it specifically referred to four stages of development from the ages of six to fifty.
Grant understood his model was a deviation from conventional interpretations of Jung's work and did not expect to "find support within the Jungian tradition". In his own words, "admittedly, it needed further testing." Grant included his model in the book in order to encourage people to view their personalities not statically but dynamically.
Alan W. Brownsword would end up writing It Takes All Types! in 1987, utilizing Grant's model "in accordance with" Myers-Briggs types. This is not actually the case; Brownsword seemed to share an incorrect belief with many personality theorists from his time about the nature of "Type," and this caused him to commit categorical errors when interpreting Jungian theory and Myers' work with the MBTI. When talking about the E/I orientations of the tertiary and inferior functions, Brownsword only says that "not all of students of Jung seem to agree with [the tertiary function sharing the same direction as the dominant function]" and dismisses the more accepted**** interpretation of Jung's work claiming that the "tertiary function" would be introverted with a claim that "it just doesn't seem to work that way." Consider Brownsword's model to be an awkward amalgamation of Jungian psychological types, Myers-Briggs theory, W.H. Grant's third model, and his own interpretation of what's really going on.
The function stack today originated with Grant and Brownsword, but has been popularized by figures like Linda Berens and Dario Nardi. There is a lot of history behind how this had come about, which you can read more about here: Full context: the cognitive functions.
**** the idea of having an "alternating stack" where the functions would be ordered IEIE or EIEI is fundamentally against how Jung described the function attitudes. Jung never made a stack template, but if he did, the directions would only ever work with two exclusive directions (i.e. IEEE, EEII, and IIIE would be acceptable, but not IEEI). Brownsword talked about how the "tertiary" function would be introverted according to Jungian analysts but he really meant that a function in that position would be introverted in their (correct) analysis of Jung's work; "tertiary" functions are not a thing in Jung's Psychological Types.
I don't understand—how is all of this calculated?
I used to give the exact formulas for the calculations before, but I like the idea of the numbers themselves being publicly ambiguous. But I really don't have a reason to be obscure about how the formulas are set up:
The Grant-Brownsword algorithm calculates a score for all sixteen possible types by adding up weighted totals for the dominant, auxiliary, and—very weakly—tertiary functions, then subtracting weighted inferior function totals in the final add-up. It would look something like this: a(dominant)+b(auxiliary)+c(tertiary)-d(inferior) = type_score
The axis-based algorithm will assume that there are no inferior functions in your stack, and that functions on opposite ends create axes that you would either prefer or not prefer, so in other words, your scores for Ne/Si are compared to Ni/Se, and the same thing goes for Se/Ni and Ni/Se. The algorithm then tries to figure out which one of those four "valued" functions you prefer should be dominant, and voila! You get your type.
Why isn't my Myers-Briggs result the same as my function result?
Because they aren't the same thing. Your Myers-Briggs result is based on the letter values assigned to each question (for example, agreeing with question #42 most significantly increases your E, N, and P scores even though it would give you 2 points for "Se") and your two other results are based only on the raw function algorithms. They are scored differently and mean different things.
How accurate is the test?
That really depends on what "accurate" means to you. My test is only meant to take your answers, run the formulas, and give you a result based on those formulas; this test would be 100% accurate solely with regards to that. Whether or not your result will be an accurate reflection of your "function type" or your Myers-Briggs type is up for you to decide.
But I should stress an important detail: I've received a little bit over 10k responses to date, and I've been able to compare purported Myers-Briggs types on this test with the types received on "raw" Form Q. Unfortunately, crossover data is scarce, and only about a tiny percentage of the slightly-less-than-10k responders (you can take tests more than once) have taken both the raw Form Q test and the function test. There is a slight NP/SJ bias in the margins, so I would seriously consider J for you if you scored "strong/clear N" and "undifferentiated" on J/P, or S if you scored "undifferentiated" and "strong/clear P," etc. But my big problem is that I can't offset the results with numerical addends or subtrahends because the gaps between these results are often relative, not absolute.
For now, I would just recommend interpreting your results with this in mind, but I may add a permalink for your results for inquiry purposes soon.
But your test is totally inaccurate! The questions suck, and I know I'm definitely not the type I got.
It's really anyone's guess what an "accurate" interpretation of the functions is, because such a thing doesn't actually exist. I know, crazy. Maybe you think those definitions are absolutely wrong, maybe somebody else thinks those definitions are absolutely correct. There isn't a consensus on what function theory is, and there frankly never will be.
But if you do think you have all the answers, I added an option for people to choose an accuracy score for the test—not of their results since they haven't seen them—but for the questions in "assessing" your functions. It's a little dumb because no one actually knows which question scores for which function before they get their results, but it would be a little wonky adding post-result data to already-submitted results. I'm sure there's a way, and I'll have to experiment with what works best.