(click here to take our other tests)

sakinorva cognitive function test

Notice: A new Enneagram test was made to replace the RHETI.
Myers-Briggs type extrapolation is not yet available, but will be soon. You can find it here: https://sakinorva.net/test/enneagram

Select a language: 

If you would like to contribute translations, please e-mail me at la@sakinorva.net. You may inquire about advertising opportunities.

This test has 96 questions.

Your results will be calculated into a table using four different methods:
The Grant/Brownsword model - though untrue to Grant's definitions for the types and their functions in From Image to Likeness: A Jungian Path in the Gospel Journey and those of Brownsword's in It Takes All Types! and Psychological Type: An Introduction, this test tries to reconcile the type development stack first proposed by Grant with the more MBTI-centric (as opposed to Jung-centric) definitions for the functions used by the typology community today.
The axis-based model - this algorithm uses preferences for function axes to arrive at a type, a practice commonly used by magicians and typologists today. (Temporarily not a thing.)

The Myers model - this algorithm stays as true as possible to how Isabel Myers had envisioned function orientations in her types, especially emphasizing the importance of the extraverted functions in determining type. (I may later expand on this in the FAQ.)
The Myers-Briggs type indicator - this test also attempts to calculate your Myers-Briggs type through a careful examination of each question and how it would correlation with each of the eight preferences; though roundabout and based only on theoretical correlations, it is reasonable to assume that this result will be more accurate than the previously mentioned algorithms in determining your Myers-Briggs type.

You can select five options per question, where the rightmost choice corresponds to "agree" and the leftmost choice corresponds to "disagree." The three options in the middle correspond to only moderate preferences for each side, the middle option being specifically for "no preference for either side." To aid you in remembering this, "agree" and "disagree" have been labeled on their corresponding columns.

Scroll down to view your results after submitting.

(no) (yes)
#1 You easily sympathize with others' struggles.
#2 You have a strong tendency to see things as either good or bad.
#3 You rely only on past experiences to guide yourself through the present.
#4 You come up with internal logical frameworks, theories, and systems to describe the world around you.
#5 You relate present experiences back to past experiences.
#6 You stay true to yourself.
#7 You believe your presence is greatly felt in a room.
#8 You prefer living in your dreams to living in the real world.
#9 You have trouble communicating your ideas with people.
#10 You like to organize things for pleasure.
#11 You see the world as a bundle of possibilities waiting to be explored.
#12 You cannot help but get hung up on small details.
#13 You are extremely objective and "tell it as it is."
#14 You are described as "stuck in your ways."
#15 You are hesitant to strictly conform to social roles.
#16 You take on subjects with a burning interest only to drop them once they no longer feel new to you.
#17 You follow a consistent routine.
#18 You live in the "here and now."
#19 You have been consistently logical throughout your life.
#20 You have a strict internal moral code that comes from within regardless of any external standards.
#21 You become upset when your care for others goes unappreciated.
#22 You are a brainstormer: you offer a multitude of different ideas in a given situation.
#23 You imagine things that aren't directly connected to the real world.
#24 You are drawn toward the abstract and often obsess over meanings.
#25 You may be viewed as selfish or self-centered.
#26 You are often the first to react to a question.
#27 You are aware of your surroundings and aren't likely to miss something right in front of you.
#28 You consider yourself a practical and realistic person, free from imagination.
#29 You are fiercely individualistic and pride yourself on your uniqueness.
#30 You easily recognize internal bodily sensations and act to suit your body's needs.
#31 You feel a strong sense of unity when communicating with others in a group.
#32 You see so many possibilities that you have trouble committing to a single one.
#33 You often arrive at conclusions that seem to come out of nowhere; you relate to "realizing" answers.
#34 You have an excellent sense of direction and instantly know your way around a new place.
#35 Fake people bother you.
#36 You are an excellent problem solver and have an incredible ability to analyze things in depth.
#37 You have an eye for aesthetics and "enjoy the finer things in life."
#38 You generally work through problems with others and involve yourself with other people to arrive at a conclusion.
#39 You may be viewed as "meddling" or "controlling" to others.
#40 You place a lot of value on details and past experiences.
#41 You would rather sugarcoat a problem than upset someone.
#42 You are blunt and straight-to-the-point in communication.
#43 You are drawn to the new, novel, and original.
#44 You see the big picture in a sea of details.
#45 You sometimes fail to adapt to new data because it is not consistent with your personal understanding of an idea.
#46 You believe that arriving at a truth is more important than winning an argument.
#47 You always try to communicate tactfully with people.
#48 You express yourself honestly and authentically.
#49 You feel as though your insights often go misunderstood.
#50 You explore things in depth for purely for the sake of exploring them in depth.
#51 You exude charisma and are usually viewed as charming by others.
#52 You understand a concept by logically recognizing and drawing patterns between different, already known concepts.
#53 You often feel awkward and aimless during leisure time.
#54 You become stubborn and resolute in the face of opposition when it comes to your personal beliefs.
#55 You can easily think of something random to say.
#56 You are able to manipulate conversations by reading others' body language.
#57 You have a tendency to go off-topic in conversation.
#58 You consider yourself an organized person and take control of situations before they get out of hand.
#59 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.
#60 You try to help people to the point where you begin to forget taking care of your own needs.
#61 You value truth and logic more than anything else.
#62 You start many different projects, but you finish few.
#63 You may be described as ditzy or scatterbrained.
#64 Generally, you would prefer a solution be thorough before putting it into action (at the cost of time).
#65 You are unnerved by uncertainty and the unknown.
#66 You are a risk-taker.
#67 You rely on external sources to support your argument.
#68 You are skilled at recognizing whether the details in front of you match what you are used to.
#69 You tend to express sympathy only after you empathize with someone.
#70 You streamline existing systems for the sake of efficiency and productivity.
#71 You find it difficult to concentrate on a single subject.
#72 You feel as though you are one of the only truly nice people left in this world.
#73 You trust hard facts and data more than anything else.
#74 You have trouble communicating with those who do not think like you.
#75 You greatly value tradition and duty.
#76 You find yourself agreeing with those who claim that the ends justify the means.
#77 You thrive on new and exciting experiences.
#78 You live in the present, not the past or the future.
#79 You may be viewed as whiny and/or depressive.
#80 You "just know" things without being able to consciously put them into words.
#81 You may be viewed as "fake" or "manipulative" to others.
#82 You greatly value social harmony and often go out of your way to maintain it.
#83 You would do whatever it takes to win a debate.
#84 You are attracted to symbolism, mysticism and the unknown.
#85 You place a great amount of trust in the mysterious and unconscious world.
#86 You may be seen as reckless and unknowingly hurt those around you.
#87 You constantly set yourself on goals and objectives.
#88 You often use metaphors to communicate new ideas.
#89 You absorb information from the outside world without additional processing.
#90 You dislike change.
#91 You often use analogies and similes to communicate new ideas.
#92 You frequently have hunches or insights about the future that turn out to be correct.
#93 You have an uncanny ability of recognizing others' needs.
#94 You value inclusion and try your best to involve everyone in a group.
#95 You work through problems by yourself and detach yourself from other people to arrive at a conclusion.
#96 You would question anything.
The following questions are optional, but recommended. Please answer truthfully.
You consent to me using your answers for data analysis: yes no
Gender: male female other
What Myers-Briggs type do you most identify with?
What Enneagram type do you most identify with?
Any additional comments? (answered here)

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.