local timenew yorktokyo
Sakinorva Cognitive Function Domain Test
Translators needed! You can help contribute translations by e-mailing [email protected].
This test is not intended for beginners, but for veterans and enthusiasts who are interested in the "meta-typology" behind the cognitive functions or are may prefer something (even) more technical.
Though unintuitive, beginners may have an easier time answering the questions in this test than the Cognitive Function Test. However, because many terms used in the results aren't used anywhere, it's likely that you will have a hard time understanding what your results mean. If you are a beginner taking this test, please ask someone familiar with the cognitive functions to help you interpret your results if you feel lost.
This website will forever maintain the position that there is no such thing as the cognitive functions, but in light of the fact that people like to relate to the traits and descriptors found in theories related to the "cognitive functions," this test was made to sort those theories out more robustly, combining similar ideas of how to classify each of the functions into domains. This test will assess the strength of your functions in its various different interpretations (domains) and then contrive them (pigeonholing) into different types according to different algorithms. A non-pigeonholed type will also be included with your results.
Information about the test and its results are detailed at the bottom of the page.
It is possible to fail this test. While this test does not necessarily aim to punish function magicians, penalties will be incurred for answering questions too magically. The higher your magic level is, the more uncertain your results become. Because magic is cruel, pervasive, and unfair in the world of the cognitive functions, certain types will simply be harder to score on this test.
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" (yes) and "disagree" (no) have been labeled on their corresponding columns.
This test has 256 questions.
Because this test is long, you have the option to save your results as a cookie above the questions. You can come back anytime to resume taking the test as long as this cookie is retained on your device. Make sure cookies are enabled!
Scroll down to view your results after submitting.
The cognitive functions are not a singular, unified theory, but rather an umbrella term to describe archetypes (the sixteen personality types) that are generally cleverly broken down into designated pieces (the eight cognitive functions) that maintain some consistency in definition across the sixteen archetypes. The cognitive functions tend to fail when possibly its most central tenet is called into question--that the eight functions are themselves standalone concepts that are used to make up the sixteen types.
The second most central tenet addressed by the test is that which posits that the cognitive functions "exist" in the mind, following a particular "stack." This test uses various formulae and algorithms to interpret the raw results, some of which follow particular stacks, and some which do not. You are free to interpret your raw results however you want, but no particular algorithm is recommended by this test. It is sakinorva.net's humble claim that there is no such thing as the cognitive functions (what?), and that there is therefore no such thing as a cognitive function stack that you use.
As most personality typology hobbyists use them, there is nothing conceptually significant about the cognitive functions. They can mean anything depending on who you ask.
This test attempts to make the cognitive functions more rigorous by splitting the functions into four domains.
The first two domains are the latent and active domains. These can be grouped together as the pure domains. They directly relate to the functions demonstrated by any particular cognitive function. These domains may be more popular among people who don't believe the functions relate to the realized personality, but instead how the brain works. They are referred to the pure domains here because they represent what may be understood as the pure form of the cognitive functions.
The latent domain is about mental activity and mental preferences. The questions here will relate to how you think on the inside and the tendencies you develop.
The active domain is about interaction with the world around you. The questions here will relate to how you communicate, mediate, and generally deal with the world around you.
It might be tempting to understand the latent domain as the introverted form of a function and the active domain as its extraverted form, but the questions do not neatly separate these two categories along these lines, even if there is a good amount of overlap. The latent domain is more about mental habits, preferences, and inclinations, some of which can relate to the world around you. The active domain adds the world as context.
The second two domains are the aptitudinal and valuing domains. These can be grouped together as the materialized domains. They relate to your personality as would be related to the cognitive functions. These domains might be more popular among people who like to theorize what cognitive functions can look like in a person. Beginners may find these questions easier to answer, as they do not often require being familiar with the terminology used in the world of personality typology. Purists are likely to dislike these questions because other functions can still produce the traits and values found in these domains (I'm guessing according to them).
The aptitudinal domain is about your skills. These skills are related here to the cognitive functions. Purists wouldn't like this domain because the cognitive functions are not about what you are good at doing, but what you are inclined to do. Purists might not realize that aptitude is generally indirectly coded into most descriptions of the cognitive functions regardless.
The valuing domain is about your values and opinions. These values are related here to the cognitive functions. Purists wouldn't like this domain because your values relate to personality, not the cognitive functions. Purists might not realize that most descriptions of the cognitive functions blur these lines.
There isn't much else to say about the domains here, so let's continue onto what the results mean.
This test measures a magic level. Your magic level is indicative of how magical your results are. Unfortunately for the magicians taking this test, a high magic level is undesirable. The higher your magic level is, the less likely this test is going to be helpful to you as a personality typology hobbyist.
Your magic level will coincide with peculiar, unusual, or unrealistic responses to the questions. It is sakinorva.net's attempt to bring you back down to Earth. If you are a beginner generally unfamiliar with the cognitive functions, you are less likely to have any issues with your magic level. It is you veterans who take the Grant/Brownsword function test on a monthly basis who may need to worry. If you answer carefully and try your best to stay grounded, you will be able to pass. I believe in you!
Your magic level begins at 0. If it crosses over 24, you fail the test. You can still see your results, of course, but your result palette will be shaded red. Welcome to results hell.
The cognitive functions won't be explained in depth here, as sakinorva.net maintains that there is no one way to define them. The test defines them by its questions. If you have trouble identifying which questions correspond to which functions, ask a friend.
However, I will provide commentary on the specific function domains and go over how they are generally defined by the test. These are not exact definitions (that would simply be the totality of the questions) but instead generally how the domains are envisioned.
- Latent: These questions are about your attitude toward ideas. If you score high here, you likely are imaginative, creative, and love new things. You're always chasing after the next big thing!
- Active: If you score high here, you're optimistic, fun-loving, open-minded, and excitable. You are probably silly and like to have a good time.
- Aptitudinal: If you score high here, you are good at working with ideas and are good at pattern recognition. You have an active imagination and naturally stay positive. You're likely always looking forward!
- Valuing: if you score high here, you're probably adventurous, daring, curious, and like thinking big. You're flexible in your thinking and believe the world has a lot to offer!
- Latent: If you score high here, you feel comfortable in your mind and have explored it thoroughly. You are deeply introspective and have found a world to explore of your own!
- Active: If you score high here, you are insightful, serious, and ingenious. You are a visionary and seek something larger than you.
- Aptitudinal: If you score high here, you're patient and a deep thinker. You are adaptable, future-oriented, and emergent in your thinking!
- Valuing: If you score high here, you're interested in the unknown and care about exploring beyond the physical world.
- Latent: If you score high here, you're well connected with the physical world and live in the present. You're active, present, and responsive!
- Active: If you score high here, you're energetic, fast-paced, and seek the spotlight. You're full of life and vigor!
- Aptitudinal: If you score high here, you have good spatial awareness and naturally know what to do in your environment. You shape the world! I tried writing some questions here to complement well with Socionics-styled Ni & Se (time and force). There's no reason why it wouldn't work in the context of the cognitive functions.
- Valuing: If you score high here, you live on new and exciting experiences. You have good awareness of power dynamics and know how to live life.
- Latent: If you score high here, you seek comfort, protection, safety, and stability. You know how to make your way through life!
- Active: If you score high here, you like following tried and tested rules. There is also a tinge of Jungian Si in here relating to how you may seek comfort in a subjective, sensory manner.
- Aptitudinal: The Si aptitude questions might be unusual to most people. The issue with Si and faculty is that it doesn't extend past memory-related skills or conscientiousness in most people's conception of this function. With inspiration from Jung's introverted sensing type, Si skills here also focus on aesthetics, sensory impressions and body awareness.
- Valuing: Some questions here, like the Se aptitude questions for Ni, are made to complement Ne by drawing from the "big world" worldview and instead focusing on how somebody who instead values introversion and sensing would interpret it. The rest of the questions are generally about valuing the familiar and the safe.
- Latent: If you score high here, you naturally keep busy, like to work, and stay productive whenever possible. You're a busy bee!
- Active: If you score high here, you have a strong will and can come off strong to others. You're also good at making sure things are working and delivering results. You keep things flowing!
- Aptitudinal: If you score high here, you know how to get things done, and you do them efficiently. You easily take on leadership or managerial roles and know how to hit goals.
- Valuing: If you score high here, you are naturally inclined toward positions of power and know how to work such roles without getting wrapped up in distractions. You're focused, serious, and know what to do when faced with difficult decisions. You're a boss/girlboss!
- Latent: If you score high here, you are in tune with your own logic and seek to hone it. You're a careful decision maker and take your time to get things right!
- Active: If you score high here, you like to work through things on your own, dealing with them in your own way. You know how to stay unbiased and like to deconstruct your thinking.
- Aptitudinal: If you score high here, you love to work through challenges, having the knowledge and patience to become a master in your craft.
- Valuing: If you score high here, you greatly value learning, education, and personal intellectual growth. You are a natural intellectual!
- Latent: If you score high here, you are strongly aware of your emotional environment and seek to maintain your harmony with it.
- Active: If you score high here, you care deeply about the people around and readily express your care. You are a natural caregiver!
- Aptitudinal: If you score high here, you are strongly aware of people's needs and know how to help them! You are an excellent relationship mediator and know how to navigate the relationships in your life.
- Value: If you score high here, you are caring, giving, forgiving, and believe in the good of others. You want to make the world a nicer place!
- Latent: If you score high here, you are attuned to yourself and your identity. You harbor deep feelings about the world around you, especially regarding your relationships with people.
- Active: If you score high here, you are empathetic and see the humanity in the people around you. You honor and respect people's experiences.
- Aptitudinal: If you score high here, you are self-aware, authentic, and have a strong moral compass.
- Valuing: If you score high here, you fight for what you personally believe is right. You value honesty, individuality, and make your way through the world in a way unique to you. You want the world to be a better place!
Positivity is associated with how the behavior in the questions are described. If the description is negative, you will score negative points for agreeing and positive points for disagreeing. If the description is positive, you will score no points for agreeing or disagreeing. The positivity indicator aggregates all these responses. This test refrains from using the words healthy and unhealthy to describe these tendencies because those words are unnecessarily charged.
There are several different algorithms used to try and put these functions into neat archetypes.
The first thing you might see in your results is a loop and grip indicator. It's considerably hard to score a loop/grip discovery, so it's not likely that you will see this, but if you do:
Loops and grips are a theory about how unhealthy behavior can manifest in type. The theory likely originated from a post on Personality Cafe comparing personality disorders to loops, but I am to this day unsure exactly where they came from. If you score a loop or grip discovery, your top two functions fit a particular configuration congruent with the patterns seen in loops and grips, and they both happen to be considerably negative.
The first result is the Grant/Brownsword algorithm. This is the same formula used in the Grant/Brownsword function test. This finds the best fit among the sixteen types using a formula that places the most importance on the dominant and auxiliary functions and sees the inferior function as underdeveloped. This formula uses the IEIE/EIEI stack and uses one of the oldest sources (is there an older one?) of this postulated stack. Underneath your best fit type, you may see other types listed to consider. These are all types whose scores are at least 75% as high as your best fit type.
This method was originally designed to bring awareness to the fact that the only accepted function stack at the time (it very likely still is today -- I simply do not keep up) was still only one conception of what a cognitive function type could look like. Grant and Brownsword's names are used as they are among the earliest users of the famous alternating stack, borrowed from reckful's research on Typology Central.
The second result is the axis-based function type. This is not a formula, but an algorithm that narrows down to your type using the two axes (Ne/Si and Se/Ni) and compares dominant functions. If your results are undifferentiated along these axes or do not indicate dominant functions, it is likely to fail and will show you only the letters it has been able to determine.
This method was designed for people who like to talk about Ne/Si and Se/Ni users and the differences between their thinking styles. This designation is especially useful to function magicians who strongly believe in the coolsexy axis.
The third result is the Myers function type. This is also an algorithm-based approach to resolving type. While Myers never really substantiated a particular function stack, she seemed to demonstrate ambitions of synthesizing her MBTI with the Jungian psychological types. This algorithm determines your type by checking where you fall on each of the different four letter axes based on the strength of your functions associated with either type. It does not use a stack, though the MBTI Manual includes an IEEE/EIII stack in a somewhat Jungian fashion (EI/IE stack).
This method was originally made to demonstrate that type can be resolved without using the famous alternating stack. It marries Myers' letters with the functions that she abandoned.
The fourth result is the purist's formula. This formula uses the Grant/Brownsword formula but ignores the materialized domains. Only your latent and active domains are factored into this result. Like the Grant/Brownsword formula, all types with scores that were at least 75% of your best type are also listed.
This formula exists for steadfast magicians. No further comment.
The fifth result is the magician's choice. Hocus pocus! This formula is sure to win the favor of those who toiled hard to keep their magic levels low for this test. This magician's choice is fair and made with deep consideration. All types with scores that were at least 80% of your best fit type are also included.
The sixth result is the strawberry formula. It is a relic from the days I used to practice magic. This formula is more behavior-oriented and tries to be as unmagical as it can be. It is used as the basis of the function diagram you see on top of your results. All types with scores that were at least 75% of your best type are listed below your best fit type.
The last thing you'll see is a list of all your functions listed from greatest to least. This is your true stack, pure and undisturbed. This itself should be interpreted as a type, but unfortunately, no one will read it as one.