u/ProbablyNotINTJ

--- Thanks ---

Firstly, I’d like to thank everyone who has provided feedback on the 16Selves personality test to date.

Recently, an INTJ raised the point that sensors might find the items too abstract - and two ENFPs subsequently indicated that even they found the items too abstract - which led to my adding tooltips with concrete examples for sensors. These are accessed by hovering over or tapping each item. This might be a first for an MBTI-style/functions test.

Also, INTPs in r/intp challenged me on what problem I’m trying to solve, and what “more accurate” or “best-fit type” actually means.

That led me to reflect on the idea that, because MBTI is considered weak - statistically and otherwise - people often interpret that to mean Jung’s underlying work is weak. However, it may instead be that a robust cognitive functions test simply hasn’t yet been developed, because we’ve lacked the appropriate statistical and multi-AI methods to develop one until now. The lack of research in that area is the specific problem I’m trying to solve.

It also led me to add definitions to the test, such as:

By “best fit,” we mean the type framework that most closely matches your overall pattern of cognition, motivation, and behaviour - especially when you’re acting naturally rather than adapting to external expectations.

It also led me to define probabilities as confidence estimates.

Furthermore, I’d like to thank everyone who has taken the test and submitted their results - which are otherwise private - to help improve it. This has led to seven rounds of revision of the instrument to date, based on multi-AI analysis of statistics such as Cronbach’s alpha, with the seventh revision just posted a moment ago.

I’m cautiously optimistic that it is now the best cognitive functions instrument in existence, and it will continue to improve as more data comes in.

INTPs: by “best in existence,” I mean reporting confidence estimates with the greatest predictive power, insofar as a type description can be predictive.

--- Now to the animals issue ---

I recently coerced a friend into taking the test and asked her what type she got.

“Oh, I’m the owl or something.”

“Which owl?” I asked.

“Is there more than one owl? Why?”

Good question. I guess the developer is just going through an owl phase. 😃

It seems that more cursory or disinterested test takers - such as those coerced into doing so by us “MBTI warriors” (#dearKristin) - tend to remember their animal only. So it seems important that each type have its own animal, and that the animal feel meaningful.

Ideally, the animals should be: (1) easy to anthropomorphise for image-creation purposes; (2) socially desirable; (3) strongly resonant with the type; and (4) distinct enough that people remember them. Ne users might be especially good at this - perhaps ENFPs in particular!

To that end, I’d love input on what animal should be assigned to each type. Here’s my preliminary list for feedback:

INTJ - Raven

Strategic, observant, elegant, and a little mysterious. Ravens feel intelligent without needing to be loud, which suits INTJs’ preference for competence, independence, and long-range thinking.

INTP - Octopus

Curious, alien-brained, flexible, puzzle-solving, and hard to box in. The octopus flatters INTPs because it suggests inventive intelligence rather than conventional status.

ENTJ - Lion

Commanding, charismatic, protective, and naturally associated with leadership. It is socially desirable because it signals confidence and authority without needing much explanation.

ENTP - Fox

Clever, playful, improvisational, charming, and slightly mischievous. A fox captures ENTP wit: agile enough to escape traps, persuasive enough to make the trap seem like a debate topic.

INFJ - Snow leopard

Rare, private, graceful, intense, and quietly powerful. The snow leopard gives INFJs mystique and moral seriousness without making them seem fragile.

INFP - Deer

Gentle, soulful, sensitive, and symbolically pure. Deer are socially beloved and aesthetically beautiful, matching INFPs’ desire to be seen as sincere, tender, and quietly resilient.

ENFJ - Dolphin

Warm, socially intelligent, cooperative, emotionally responsive, and beloved. Dolphins fit ENFJs because they combine friendliness, leadership, and group harmony.

ENFP - Otter

Playful, affectionate, curious, expressive, and irresistibly likable. Otters are socially desirable because they radiate joy, spontaneity, and warmth without seeming shallow.

ISTJ - Badger

Steady, industrious, territorial in a principled way, and quietly formidable. The badger flatters ISTJs by honouring their groundedness, work ethic, and “do not test me on the rules” backbone - without the mystical aura that owls carry toward INxJ types.

ISFJ - Golden retriever

Loyal, nurturing, steady, kind, and universally loved. It suits ISFJs because it makes devotion and caretaking look admirable, warm, and emotionally safe.

ESTJ - German shepherd

Disciplined, protective, dependable, vigilant, and built for duty. The German shepherd suits ESTJs because it signals competent authority and order-keeping - a working leader rather than a distant, soaring one.

ESFJ - Elephant

Family-oriented, emotionally bonded, socially attentive, protective, and memorable. Elephants flatter ESFJs because they symbolise loyalty, community, tradition, and care.

ISTP - Lynx

Solitary, precise, silent, athletic, and unflappable. The lynx gives ISTPs a self-contained, tactical elegance - the lone specialist who appears only when needed - without the pack-coded baggage of the wolf.

ISFP - Horse

Beautiful, sensitive, expressive, and quietly powerful, with a strong inner life that responds to trust rather than command. The horse suits ISFPs’ aesthetic individuality and emotional depth better than the swan’s chillier symbolism, while still honouring grace and presence.

ESTP - Panther

Sleek, fast, bold, sensual, and dangerous in a socially admired way. The panther suits ESTPs because it signals action, confidence, instinct, and physical presence.

ESFP - Peacock

Vivid, performative, glamorous, fun, and impossible to ignore. Peacocks are ideal for ESFPs because they turn visibility into art: expressive, social, and celebratory.

Looking forward to everyone’s thoughts.

Please let me know if you are the type you’re commenting on - ideally according to the 16Selves test itself.

--- Thanks ---

Firstly, I’d like to thank everyone who has provided feedback on the 16Selves personality test to date.

Recently, an INTJ raised the point that sensors might find the items too abstract - and two ENFPs subsequently indicated that even they found the items too abstract - which led to my adding tooltips with concrete examples for sensors. These are accessed by hovering over or tapping each item. This might be a first for an MBTI-style/functions test.

Also, INTPs in r/intp challenged me on what problem I’m trying to solve, and what “more accurate” or “best-fit type” actually means.

That led me to reflect on the idea that, because MBTI is considered weak - statistically and otherwise - people often interpret that to mean Jung’s underlying work is weak. However, it may instead be that a robust cognitive functions test simply hasn’t yet been developed, because we’ve lacked the appropriate statistical and multi-AI methods to develop one until now. The lack of research in that area is the specific problem I’m trying to solve.

It also led me to add definitions to the test, such as:

By “best fit,” we mean the type framework that most closely matches your overall pattern of cognition, motivation, and behaviour - especially when you’re acting naturally rather than adapting to external expectations.

It also led me to define probabilities as confidence estimates.

Furthermore, I’d like to thank everyone who has taken the test and submitted their results - which are otherwise private - to help improve it. This has led to seven rounds of revision of the instrument to date, based on multi-AI analysis of statistics such as Cronbach’s alpha, with the seventh revision just posted a moment ago.

I’m cautiously optimistic that it is now the best cognitive functions instrument in existence, and it will continue to improve as more data comes in.

INTPs: by “best in existence,” I mean reporting confidence estimates with the greatest predictive power, insofar as a type description can be predictive.

--- Now to the animals issue ---

I recently coerced a friend into taking the test and asked her what type she got.

“Oh, I’m the owl or something.”

“Which owl?” I asked.

“Is there more than one owl? Why?”

Good question. I guess the developer is just going through an owl phase. 😃

It seems that more cursory or disinterested test takers - such as those coerced into doing so by us “MBTI warriors” (#dearKristin) - tend to remember their animal only. So it seems important that each type have its own animal, and that the animal feel meaningful.

Ideally, the animals should be: (1) easy to anthropomorphise for image-creation purposes; (2) socially desirable; (3) strongly resonant with the type; and (4) distinct enough that people remember them. Ne users might be especially good at this - perhaps ENFPs in particular!

To that end, I’d love input on what animal should be assigned to each type. Here’s my preliminary list for feedback:

INTJ - Raven

Strategic, observant, elegant, and a little mysterious. Ravens feel intelligent without needing to be loud, which suits INTJs’ preference for competence, independence, and long-range thinking.

INTP - Octopus

Curious, alien-brained, flexible, puzzle-solving, and hard to box in. The octopus flatters INTPs because it suggests inventive intelligence rather than conventional status.

ENTJ - Lion

Commanding, charismatic, protective, and naturally associated with leadership. It is socially desirable because it signals confidence and authority without needing much explanation.

ENTP - Fox

Clever, playful, improvisational, charming, and slightly mischievous. A fox captures ENTP wit: agile enough to escape traps, persuasive enough to make the trap seem like a debate topic.

INFJ - Snow leopard

Rare, private, graceful, intense, and quietly powerful. The snow leopard gives INFJs mystique and moral seriousness without making them seem fragile.

INFP - Deer

Gentle, soulful, sensitive, and symbolically pure. Deer are socially beloved and aesthetically beautiful, matching INFPs’ desire to be seen as sincere, tender, and quietly resilient.

ENFJ - Dolphin

Warm, socially intelligent, cooperative, emotionally responsive, and beloved. Dolphins fit ENFJs because they combine friendliness, leadership, and group harmony.

ENFP - Otter

Playful, affectionate, curious, expressive, and irresistibly likable. Otters are socially desirable because they radiate joy, spontaneity, and warmth without seeming shallow.

ISTJ - Badger

Steady, industrious, territorial in a principled way, and quietly formidable. The badger flatters ISTJs by honouring their groundedness, work ethic, and “do not test me on the rules” backbone - without the mystical aura that owls carry toward INxJ types.

ISFJ - Golden retriever

Loyal, nurturing, steady, kind, and universally loved. It suits ISFJs because it makes devotion and caretaking look admirable, warm, and emotionally safe.

ESTJ - German shepherd

Disciplined, protective, dependable, vigilant, and built for duty. The German shepherd suits ESTJs because it signals competent authority and order-keeping - a working leader rather than a distant, soaring one.

ESFJ - Elephant

Family-oriented, emotionally bonded, socially attentive, protective, and memorable. Elephants flatter ESFJs because they symbolise loyalty, community, tradition, and care.

ISTP - Lynx

Solitary, precise, silent, athletic, and unflappable. The lynx gives ISTPs a self-contained, tactical elegance - the lone specialist who appears only when needed - without the pack-coded baggage of the wolf.

ISFP - Horse

Beautiful, sensitive, expressive, and quietly powerful, with a strong inner life that responds to trust rather than command. The horse suits ISFPs’ aesthetic individuality and emotional depth better than the swan’s chillier symbolism, while still honouring grace and presence.

ESTP - Panther

Sleek, fast, bold, sensual, and dangerous in a socially admired way. The panther suits ESTPs because it signals action, confidence, instinct, and physical presence.

ESFP - Peacock

Vivid, performative, glamorous, fun, and impossible to ignore. Peacocks are ideal for ESFPs because they turn visibility into art: expressive, social, and celebratory.

Looking forward to everyone’s thoughts.

Please let me know if you are the type you’re commenting on - ideally according to the 16Selves test itself.

--- Thanks ---

Firstly, I’d like to thank everyone who has provided feedback on the 16Selves personality test to date.

Recently, an INTJ raised the point that sensors might find the items too abstract - and two ENFPs subsequently indicated that even they found the items too abstract - which led to my adding tooltips with concrete examples for sensors. These are accessed by hovering over or tapping each item. This might be a first for an MBTI-style/functions test.

Also, INTPs in r/intp challenged me on what problem I’m trying to solve, and what “more accurate” or “best-fit type” actually means.

That led me to reflect on the idea that, because MBTI is considered weak - statistically and otherwise - people often interpret that to mean Jung’s underlying work is weak. However, it may instead be that a robust cognitive functions test simply hasn’t yet been developed, because we’ve lacked the appropriate statistical and multi-AI methods to develop one until now. The lack of research in that area is the specific problem I’m trying to solve.

It also led me to add definitions to the test, such as:

By “best fit,” we mean the type framework that most closely matches your overall pattern of cognition, motivation, and behaviour - especially when you’re acting naturally rather than adapting to external expectations.

It also led me to define probabilities as confidence estimates.

Furthermore, I’d like to thank everyone who has taken the test and submitted their results - which are otherwise private - to help improve it. This has led to seven rounds of revision of the instrument to date, based on multi-AI analysis of statistics such as Cronbach’s alpha, with the seventh revision just posted a moment ago.

I’m cautiously optimistic that it is now the best cognitive functions instrument in existence, and it will continue to improve as more data comes in.

INTPs: by “best in existence,” I mean reporting confidence estimates with the greatest predictive power, insofar as a type description can be predictive.

--- Now to the animals issue ---

I recently coerced a friend into taking the test and asked her what type she got.

“Oh, I’m the owl or something.”

“Which owl?” I asked.

“Is there more than one owl? Why?”

Good question. I guess the developer is just going through an owl phase. 😃

It seems that more cursory or disinterested test takers - such as those coerced into doing so by us “MBTI warriors” (#dearKristin) - tend to remember their animal only. So it seems important that each type have its own animal, and that the animal feel meaningful.

Ideally, the animals should be: (1) easy to anthropomorphise for image-creation purposes; (2) socially desirable; (3) strongly resonant with the type; and (4) distinct enough that people remember them. Ne users might be especially good at this - perhaps ENFPs in particular!

To that end, I’d love input on what animal should be assigned to each type. Here’s my preliminary list for feedback:

INTJ - Raven

Strategic, observant, elegant, and a little mysterious. Ravens feel intelligent without needing to be loud, which suits INTJs’ preference for competence, independence, and long-range thinking.

INTP - Octopus

Curious, alien-brained, flexible, puzzle-solving, and hard to box in. The octopus flatters INTPs because it suggests inventive intelligence rather than conventional status.

ENTJ - Lion

Commanding, charismatic, protective, and naturally associated with leadership. It is socially desirable because it signals confidence and authority without needing much explanation.

ENTP - Fox

Clever, playful, improvisational, charming, and slightly mischievous. A fox captures ENTP wit: agile enough to escape traps, persuasive enough to make the trap seem like a debate topic.

INFJ - Snow leopard

Rare, private, graceful, intense, and quietly powerful. The snow leopard gives INFJs mystique and moral seriousness without making them seem fragile.

INFP - Deer

Gentle, soulful, sensitive, and symbolically pure. Deer are socially beloved and aesthetically beautiful, matching INFPs’ desire to be seen as sincere, tender, and quietly resilient.

ENFJ - Dolphin

Warm, socially intelligent, cooperative, emotionally responsive, and beloved. Dolphins fit ENFJs because they combine friendliness, leadership, and group harmony.

ENFP - Otter

Playful, affectionate, curious, expressive, and irresistibly likable. Otters are socially desirable because they radiate joy, spontaneity, and warmth without seeming shallow.

ISTJ - Badger

Steady, industrious, territorial in a principled way, and quietly formidable. The badger flatters ISTJs by honouring their groundedness, work ethic, and “do not test me on the rules” backbone - without the mystical aura that owls carry toward INxJ types.

ISFJ - Golden retriever

Loyal, nurturing, steady, kind, and universally loved. It suits ISFJs because it makes devotion and caretaking look admirable, warm, and emotionally safe.

ESTJ - German shepherd

Disciplined, protective, dependable, vigilant, and built for duty. The German shepherd suits ESTJs because it signals competent authority and order-keeping - a working leader rather than a distant, soaring one.

ESFJ - Elephant

Family-oriented, emotionally bonded, socially attentive, protective, and memorable. Elephants flatter ESFJs because they symbolise loyalty, community, tradition, and care.

ISTP - Lynx

Solitary, precise, silent, athletic, and unflappable. The lynx gives ISTPs a self-contained, tactical elegance - the lone specialist who appears only when needed - without the pack-coded baggage of the wolf.

ISFP - Horse

Beautiful, sensitive, expressive, and quietly powerful, with a strong inner life that responds to trust rather than command. The horse suits ISFPs’ aesthetic individuality and emotional depth better than the swan’s chillier symbolism, while still honouring grace and presence.

ESTP - Panther

Sleek, fast, bold, sensual, and dangerous in a socially admired way. The panther suits ESTPs because it signals action, confidence, instinct, and physical presence.

ESFP - Peacock

Vivid, performative, glamorous, fun, and impossible to ignore. Peacocks are ideal for ESFPs because they turn visibility into art: expressive, social, and celebratory.

Looking forward to everyone’s thoughts.

Please let me know if you are the type you’re commenting on - ideally according to the 16Selves test itself.

https://preview.redd.it/804jjko7a72h1.jpg?width=1448&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=411bd71e90e47d22fd7624a7e94e2bb009b02d81

--- Thanks ---

Firstly, I’d like to thank everyone who has provided feedback on the 16Selves personality test to date.

Recently, an INTJ raised the point that sensors might find the items too abstract - and two ENFPs subsequently indicated that even they found the items too abstract - which led to my adding tooltips with concrete examples for sensors. These are accessed by hovering over or tapping each item. This might be a first for an MBTI-style/functions test.

Also, INTPs in r/intp challenged me on what problem I’m trying to solve, and what “more accurate” or “best-fit type” actually means.

That led me to reflect on the idea that, because MBTI is considered weak - statistically and otherwise - people often interpret that to mean Jung’s underlying work is weak. However, it may instead be that a robust cognitive functions test simply hasn’t yet been developed, because we’ve lacked the appropriate statistical and multi-AI methods to develop one until now. The lack of research in that area is the specific problem I’m trying to solve.

It also led me to add definitions to the test, such as:

By “best fit,” we mean the type framework that most closely matches your overall pattern of cognition, motivation, and behaviour - especially when you’re acting naturally rather than adapting to external expectations.

It also led me to define probabilities as confidence estimates.

Furthermore, I’d like to thank everyone who has taken the test and submitted their results - which are otherwise private - to help improve it. This has led to seven rounds of revision of the instrument to date, based on multi-AI analysis of statistics such as Cronbach’s alpha, with the seventh revision just posted a moment ago.

I’m cautiously optimistic that it is now the best cognitive functions instrument in existence, and it will continue to improve as more data comes in.

INTPs: by “best in existence,” I mean reporting confidence estimates with the greatest predictive power, insofar as a type description can be predictive.

--- Now to the animals issue ---

I recently coerced a friend into taking the test and asked her what type she got.

“Oh, I’m the owl or something.”

“Which owl?” I asked.

“Is there more than one owl? Why?”

Good question. I guess the developer is just going through an owl phase. 😃

It seems that more cursory or disinterested test takers - such as those coerced into doing so by us “MBTI warriors” (#dearKristin) - tend to remember their animal only. So it seems important that each type have its own animal, and that the animal feel meaningful.

Ideally, the animals should be: (1) easy to anthropomorphise for image-creation purposes; (2) socially desirable; (3) strongly resonant with the type; and (4) distinct enough that people remember them. Ne users might be especially good at this - perhaps ENFPs in particular!

To that end, I’d love input on what animal should be assigned to each type. Here’s my preliminary list for feedback:

INTJ - Raven

Strategic, observant, elegant, and a little mysterious. Ravens feel intelligent without needing to be loud, which suits INTJs’ preference for competence, independence, and long-range thinking.

INTP - Octopus

Curious, alien-brained, flexible, puzzle-solving, and hard to box in. The octopus flatters INTPs because it suggests inventive intelligence rather than conventional status.

ENTJ - Lion

Commanding, charismatic, protective, and naturally associated with leadership. It is socially desirable because it signals confidence and authority without needing much explanation.

ENTP - Fox

Clever, playful, improvisational, charming, and slightly mischievous. A fox captures ENTP wit: agile enough to escape traps, persuasive enough to make the trap seem like a debate topic.

INFJ - Snow leopard

Rare, private, graceful, intense, and quietly powerful. The snow leopard gives INFJs mystique and moral seriousness without making them seem fragile.

INFP - Deer

Gentle, soulful, sensitive, and symbolically pure. Deer are socially beloved and aesthetically beautiful, matching INFPs’ desire to be seen as sincere, tender, and quietly resilient.

ENFJ - Dolphin

Warm, socially intelligent, cooperative, emotionally responsive, and beloved. Dolphins fit ENFJs because they combine friendliness, leadership, and group harmony.

ENFP - Otter

Playful, affectionate, curious, expressive, and irresistibly likable. Otters are socially desirable because they radiate joy, spontaneity, and warmth without seeming shallow.

ISTJ - Badger

Steady, industrious, territorial in a principled way, and quietly formidable. The badger flatters ISTJs by honouring their groundedness, work ethic, and “do not test me on the rules” backbone - without the mystical aura that owls carry toward INxJ types.

ISFJ - Golden retriever

Loyal, nurturing, steady, kind, and universally loved. It suits ISFJs because it makes devotion and caretaking look admirable, warm, and emotionally safe.

ESTJ - German shepherd

Disciplined, protective, dependable, vigilant, and built for duty. The German shepherd suits ESTJs because it signals competent authority and order-keeping - a working leader rather than a distant, soaring one.

ESFJ - Elephant

Family-oriented, emotionally bonded, socially attentive, protective, and memorable. Elephants flatter ESFJs because they symbolise loyalty, community, tradition, and care.

ISTP - Lynx

Solitary, precise, silent, athletic, and unflappable. The lynx gives ISTPs a self-contained, tactical elegance - the lone specialist who appears only when needed - without the pack-coded baggage of the wolf.

ISFP - Horse

Beautiful, sensitive, expressive, and quietly powerful, with a strong inner life that responds to trust rather than command. The horse suits ISFPs’ aesthetic individuality and emotional depth better than the swan’s chillier symbolism, while still honouring grace and presence.

ESTP - Panther

Sleek, fast, bold, sensual, and dangerous in a socially admired way. The panther suits ESTPs because it signals action, confidence, instinct, and physical presence.

ESFP - Peacock

Vivid, performative, glamorous, fun, and impossible to ignore. Peacocks are ideal for ESFPs because they turn visibility into art: expressive, social, and celebratory

Looking forward to everyone’s thoughts.

Please let me know if you are the type you’re commenting on - ideally according to the 16Selves test itself at www.16selves.com

https://preview.redd.it/sydx5o7z872h1.jpg?width=1448&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=88f973763f1e952ceab852b2322d56b1defc5d75

--- Thanks ---

Firstly, I’d like to thank everyone who has provided feedback on the 16Selves personality test to date.

Recently, an INTJ raised the point that sensors might find the items too abstract - and two ENFPs subsequently indicated that even they found the items too abstract - which led to my adding tooltips with concrete examples for sensors. These are accessed by hovering over or tapping each item. This might be a first for an MBTI-style/functions test.

Also, INTPs in r/intp challenged me on what problem I’m trying to solve, and what “more accurate” or “best-fit type” actually means.

That led me to reflect on the idea that, because MBTI is considered weak - statistically and otherwise - people often interpret that to mean Jung’s underlying work is weak. However, it may instead be that a robust cognitive functions test simply hasn’t yet been developed, because we’ve lacked the appropriate statistical and multi-AI methods to develop one until now. The lack of research in that area is the specific problem I’m trying to solve.

It also led me to add definitions to the test, such as:

By “best fit,” we mean the type framework that most closely matches your overall pattern of cognition, motivation, and behaviour - especially when you’re acting naturally rather than adapting to external expectations.

It also led me to define probabilities as confidence estimates.

Furthermore, I’d like to thank everyone who has taken the test and submitted their results - which are otherwise private - to help improve it. This has led to seven rounds of revision of the instrument to date, based on multi-AI analysis of statistics such as Cronbach’s alpha, with the seventh revision just posted a moment ago.

I’m cautiously optimistic that it is now the best cognitive functions instrument in existence, and it will continue to improve as more data comes in.

INTPs: by “best in existence,” I mean reporting confidence estimates with the greatest predictive power, insofar as a type description can be predictive.

--- My own type ---

I identify as an INFJ, though I tend to be perceived as an INTJ, which I think is a common mistype among men. I definitely have INTJ vibes; but ultimately, I'm a musician who works in social policy and is much more concerned with Fe human/social/artistic issues and Ti theory than with, for example, writing efficient (Te) algorithms for crypto trading and associated financial reward (Fi). 😃

--- Now to the animals issue ---

I recently coerced a friend into taking the test and asked her what type she got.

“Oh, I’m the owl or something.”

“Which owl?” I asked.

“Is there more than one owl? Why?”

Good question. I guess the developer is just going through an owl phase. 😃

It seems that more cursory or disinterested test takers - such as those coerced into doing so by us “MBTI warriors” (#dearKristin) - tend to remember their animal only. So it seems important that each type have its own animal, and that the animal feel meaningful.

Ideally, the animals should be: (1) easy to anthropomorphise for image-creation purposes; (2) socially desirable; (3) strongly resonant with the type; and (4) distinct enough that people remember them. Ne users might be especially good at this - perhaps ENFPs in particular!

To that end, I’d love input on what animal should be assigned to each type. Here’s my preliminary list for feedback:

INTJ - Raven

Strategic, observant, elegant, and a little mysterious. Ravens feel intelligent without needing to be loud, which suits INTJs’ preference for competence, independence, and long-range thinking.

INTP - Octopus

Curious, alien-brained, flexible, puzzle-solving, and hard to box in. The octopus flatters INTPs because it suggests inventive intelligence rather than conventional status.

ENTJ - Lion

Commanding, charismatic, protective, and naturally associated with leadership. It is socially desirable because it signals confidence and authority without needing much explanation.

ENTP - Fox

Clever, playful, improvisational, charming, and slightly mischievous. A fox captures ENTP wit: agile enough to escape traps, persuasive enough to make the trap seem like a debate topic.

INFJ - Snow leopard

Rare, private, graceful, intense, and quietly powerful. The snow leopard gives INFJs mystique and moral seriousness without making them seem fragile.

INFP - Deer

Gentle, soulful, sensitive, and symbolically pure. Deer are socially beloved and aesthetically beautiful, matching INFPs’ desire to be seen as sincere, tender, and quietly resilient.

ENFJ - Dolphin

Warm, socially intelligent, cooperative, emotionally responsive, and beloved. Dolphins fit ENFJs because they combine friendliness, leadership, and group harmony.

ENFP - Otter

Playful, affectionate, curious, expressive, and irresistibly likable. Otters are socially desirable because they radiate joy, spontaneity, and warmth without seeming shallow.

ISTJ - Badger

Steady, industrious, territorial in a principled way, and quietly formidable. The badger flatters ISTJs by honouring their groundedness, work ethic, and “do not test me on the rules” backbone - without the mystical aura that owls carry toward INxJ types.

ISFJ - Golden retriever

Loyal, nurturing, steady, kind, and universally loved. It suits ISFJs because it makes devotion and caretaking look admirable, warm, and emotionally safe.

ESTJ - German shepherd

Disciplined, protective, dependable, vigilant, and built for duty. The German shepherd suits ESTJs because it signals competent authority and order-keeping - a working leader rather than a distant, soaring one.

ESFJ - Elephant

Family-oriented, emotionally bonded, socially attentive, protective, and memorable. Elephants flatter ESFJs because they symbolise loyalty, community, tradition, and care.

ISTP - Lynx

Solitary, precise, silent, athletic, and unflappable. The lynx gives ISTPs a self-contained, tactical elegance - the lone specialist who appears only when needed - without the pack-coded baggage of the wolf.

ISFP - Horse

Beautiful, sensitive, expressive, and quietly powerful, with a strong inner life that responds to trust rather than command. The horse suits ISFPs’ aesthetic individuality and emotional depth better than the swan’s chillier symbolism, while still honouring grace and presence.

ESTP - Panther

Sleek, fast, bold, sensual, and dangerous in a socially admired way. The panther suits ESTPs because it signals action, confidence, instinct, and physical presence.

ESFP - Peacock

Vivid, performative, glamorous, fun, and impossible to ignore. Peacocks are ideal for ESFPs because they turn visibility into art: expressive, social, and celebratory.

Looking forward to everyone’s thoughts.

Please let me know if you are the type you’re commenting on - ideally according to the 16Selves test itself.

--- Thanks ---

Firstly, I’d like to thank everyone who has provided feedback on the 16Selves personality test to date.

Recently, an INTJ raised the point that sensors might find the items too abstract - and two ENFPs subsequently indicated that even they found the items too abstract - which led to my adding tooltips with concrete examples for sensors. These are accessed by hovering over or tapping each item. This might be a first for an MBTI-style/functions test.

Also, INTPs in r/intp challenged me on what problem I’m trying to solve, and what “more accurate” or “best-fit type” actually means.

That led me to reflect on the idea that, because MBTI is considered weak - statistically and otherwise - people often interpret that to mean Jung’s underlying work is weak. However, it may instead be that a robust cognitive functions test simply hasn’t yet been developed, because we’ve lacked the appropriate statistical and multi-AI methods to develop one until now. The lack of research in that area is the specific problem I’m trying to solve.

It also led me to add definitions to the test, such as:

By “best fit,” we mean the type framework that most closely matches your overall pattern of cognition, motivation, and behaviour - especially when you’re acting naturally rather than adapting to external expectations.

It also led me to define probabilities as confidence estimates.

Furthermore, I’d like to thank everyone who has taken the test and submitted their results - which are otherwise private - to help improve it. This has led to seven rounds of revision of the instrument to date, based on multi-AI analysis of statistics such as Cronbach’s alpha, with the seventh revision just posted a moment ago.

I’m cautiously optimistic that it is now the best cognitive functions instrument in existence, and it will continue to improve as more data comes in.

INTPs: by “best in existence,” I mean reporting confidence estimates with the greatest predictive power, insofar as a type description can be predictive.

--- Now to the animals issue ---

I recently coerced a friend into taking the test and asked her what type she got.

“Oh, I’m the owl or something.”

“Which owl?” I asked.

“Is there more than one owl? Why?”

Good question. I guess the developer is just going through an owl phase. 😃

It seems that more cursory or disinterested test takers - such as those coerced into doing so by us “MBTI warriors” (#dearKristin) - tend to remember their animal only. So it seems important that each type have its own animal, and that the animal feel meaningful.

Ideally, the animals should be: (1) easy to anthropomorphise for image-creation purposes; (2) socially desirable; (3) strongly resonant with the type; and (4) distinct enough that people remember them. Ne users might be especially good at this - perhaps ENFPs in particular!

To that end, I’d love input on what animal should be assigned to each type. Here’s my preliminary list for feedback:

INTJ - Raven

Strategic, observant, elegant, and a little mysterious. Ravens feel intelligent without needing to be loud, which suits INTJs’ preference for competence, independence, and long-range thinking.

INTP - Octopus

Curious, alien-brained, flexible, puzzle-solving, and hard to box in. The octopus flatters INTPs because it suggests inventive intelligence rather than conventional status.

ENTJ - Lion

Commanding, charismatic, protective, and naturally associated with leadership. It is socially desirable because it signals confidence and authority without needing much explanation.

ENTP - Fox

Clever, playful, improvisational, charming, and slightly mischievous. A fox captures ENTP wit: agile enough to escape traps, persuasive enough to make the trap seem like a debate topic.

INFJ - Snow leopard

Rare, private, graceful, intense, and quietly powerful. The snow leopard gives INFJs mystique and moral seriousness without making them seem fragile.

INFP - Deer

Gentle, soulful, sensitive, and symbolically pure. Deer are socially beloved and aesthetically beautiful, matching INFPs’ desire to be seen as sincere, tender, and quietly resilient.

ENFJ - Dolphin

Warm, socially intelligent, cooperative, emotionally responsive, and beloved. Dolphins fit ENFJs because they combine friendliness, leadership, and group harmony.

ENFP - Otter

Playful, affectionate, curious, expressive, and irresistibly likable. Otters are socially desirable because they radiate joy, spontaneity, and warmth without seeming shallow.

ISTJ - Badger

Steady, industrious, territorial in a principled way, and quietly formidable. The badger flatters ISTJs by honouring their groundedness, work ethic, and “do not test me on the rules” backbone - without the mystical aura that owls carry toward INxJ types.

ISFJ - Golden retriever

Loyal, nurturing, steady, kind, and universally loved. It suits ISFJs because it makes devotion and caretaking look admirable, warm, and emotionally safe.

ESTJ - German shepherd

Disciplined, protective, dependable, vigilant, and built for duty. The German shepherd suits ESTJs because it signals competent authority and order-keeping - a working leader rather than a distant, soaring one.

ESFJ - Elephant

Family-oriented, emotionally bonded, socially attentive, protective, and memorable. Elephants flatter ESFJs because they symbolise loyalty, community, tradition, and care.

ISTP - Lynx

Solitary, precise, silent, athletic, and unflappable. The lynx gives ISTPs a self-contained, tactical elegance - the lone specialist who appears only when needed - without the pack-coded baggage of the wolf.

ISFP - Horse

Beautiful, sensitive, expressive, and quietly powerful, with a strong inner life that responds to trust rather than command. The horse suits ISFPs’ aesthetic individuality and emotional depth better than the swan’s chillier symbolism, while still honouring grace and presence.

ESTP - Panther

Sleek, fast, bold, sensual, and dangerous in a socially admired way. The panther suits ESTPs because it signals action, confidence, instinct, and physical presence.

ESFP - Peacock

Vivid, performative, glamorous, fun, and impossible to ignore. Peacocks are ideal for ESFPs because they turn visibility into art: expressive, social, and celebratory.

Looking forward to everyone’s thoughts.

Please let me know if you are the type you’re commenting on - ideally according to the 16Selves test itself.

One of the most thoughtful pieces of feedback I've received on 16Selves came from an INTJ:

> "As an INTJ I totally understand the questions, but for sensor types it would be better if you gave an example that they can imagine in their heads. They will be turned off the questions and might feel like astrology."

Exactly.

The point is clearly valid. People who naturally generalise across contexts (often intuitive types) may find abstract items easy to work with, while others understandably want something more concrete and situational.

That might even help explain why online typology communities tend to attract disproportionately high numbers of INFJs, INTJs, and other intuitive types.

But there's also a problem with highly specific examples.

For example:

> "If your boss gave you instructions on a project without a clear goal, how likely are you to question the purpose of the project?"

This clarifies the item for some people - but it also anchors the response to: workplace dynamics, authority relationships, confidence levels, current employment situation, cultural attitudes toward bosses, etc.

Someone might behave one way with a manager, another way with friends, another way creatively, and another way in relationships.

So instead of adding rigid situational examples, I’ve started experimenting with optional cross-context tooltips designed to clarify patterns without locking people into one specific role or environment.

For example:

> "You may notice when expectations, responsibilities, priorities, or next steps are unclear."

rather than:

> "In a work meeting..."

I’m very interested in what people think - especially sensors and anyone who has felt either:

> "finally, a typology test that captures how I actually think,"

or:

> "I still have no idea what this question is asking."

The balance between clarity and over-contextualisation turns out to be surprisingly difficult. See www.16selves.com for my first attempt - admittedly in collaboration with non-human entitles, including but not limited to spell check - feedback would be appreciated.

One of the most thoughtful pieces of feedback I've received on 16Selves came from an INTJ:

> "As an INTJ I totally understand the questions, but for sensor types it would be better if you gave an example that they can imagine in their heads. They will be turned off the questions and might feel like astrology."

Exactly.

The point is clearly valid. People who naturally generalise across contexts (often intuitive types) may find abstract items easy to work with, while others understandably want something more concrete and situational.

That might even help explain why online typology communities tend to attract disproportionately high numbers of INFJs, INTJs, and other intuitive types.

But there's also a problem with highly specific examples.

For example:

> "If your boss gave you instructions on a project without a clear goal, how likely are you to question the purpose of the project?"

This clarifies the item for some people - but it also anchors the response to: workplace dynamics, authority relationships, confidence levels, current employment situation, cultural attitudes toward bosses, etc.

Someone might behave one way with a manager, another way with friends, another way creatively, and another way in relationships.

So instead of adding rigid situational examples, I’ve started experimenting with optional cross-context tooltips designed to clarify patterns without locking people into one specific role or environment.

For example:

> "You may notice when expectations, responsibilities, priorities, or next steps are unclear."

rather than:

> "In a work meeting..."

I’m very interested in what people think - especially sensors and anyone who has felt either:

> "finally, a typology test that captures how I actually think,"

or:

> "I still have no idea what this question is asking."

The balance between clarity and over-contextualisation turns out to be surprisingly difficult. See www.16selves.com for my first attempt - admittedly in collaboration with non-human entitles, including but not limited to spell check - feedback would be appreciated.

One of the most thoughtful pieces of feedback I've received on 16Selves came from an INTJ:

> "As an INTJ I totally understand the questions, but for sensor types it would be better if you gave an example that they can imagine in their heads. They will be turned off the questions and might feel like astrology."

Exactly.

The point is clearly valid. People who naturally generalise across contexts (often intuitive types) may find abstract items easy to work with, while others understandably want something more concrete and situational.

That might even help explain why online typology communities tend to attract disproportionately high numbers of INFJs, INTJs, and other intuitive types.

But there's also a problem with highly specific examples.

For example:

> "If your boss gave you instructions on a project without a clear goal, how likely are you to question the purpose of the project?"

This clarifies the item for some people - but it also anchors the response to: workplace dynamics, authority relationships, confidence levels, current employment situation, cultural attitudes toward bosses, etc.

Someone might behave one way with a manager, another way with friends, another way creatively, and another way in relationships.

So instead of adding rigid situational examples, I’ve started experimenting with optional cross-context tooltips designed to clarify patterns without locking people into one specific role or environment.

For example:

> "You may notice when expectations, responsibilities, priorities, or next steps are unclear."

rather than:

> "In a work meeting..."

I’m very interested in what people think - especially sensors and anyone who has felt either:

> "finally, a typology test that captures how I actually think," or: > "I still have no idea what this question is asking."

The balance between clarity and over-contextualisation turns out to be surprisingly difficult. See www.16selves.com for my first attempt - admittedly in collaboration with non-human entitles, including but not limited to spell check - feedback would be appreciated.

On what basis? And, will you remove low-effort human content also?

I recently shared 16Selves, a free cognitive-functions-based personality test, across a few social media communities and asked for honest feedback.

First: thank you. The response has been incredibly helpful.

People tested the results, challenged the methodology, compared it with tools like Sakinorva, Michael Caloz, SimilarMinds, Keys 2 Cognition, and 16Personalities, flagged confusing wording, commented on the design language, pointed out UX issues, and gave thoughtful feedback on how the test felt in practice.

Some people said it typed them surprisingly accurately. Others gave very useful criticism about item phrasing, function scoring, and clarity. Both kinds of feedback helped.

✨ What makes 16Selves different?

For anyone new to it, 16Selves is designed to be a different kind of MBTI / Jungian cognitive function test.

Its main points of difference are:

🔹 Direct measurement of all 8 cognitive functions

Rather than relying only on broad letter preferences.

🔹 Adaptive follow-up questions

So the test can explore your profile in more detail where it matters.

🔹 Probabilistic type hypotheses

Instead of giving one absolute “you are definitely this” result.

🔹 Forward and reverse-coded items

Designed to reduce simple agreement bias and make the profile more meaningful.

🔹 Stereotype-resistant wording

No “introvert = shy” or “extravert = loud/social” shortcuts.

🔹 Privacy-first design

No accounts, no monetisation, no selling user data.

🔹 A lens, not a label

The goal is self-reflection, not boxing people in.

🛠️ What changed after the feedback?

Since the first round of feedback, I’ve made a lot of updates, including:

✅ Clearer, more accurate questionnaire wording to improve construct clarity, reduce overlap between functions, and make items easier to answer

✅ More useful results explanations, including clearer confidence estimates and best-fit type hypotheses

✅ Improved results-page layout, so your type, function scores, insights, and next steps are easier to understand

✅ Better mobile experience, with refined spacing, cleaner cards, and smoother page flow

✅ Revised type descriptions, function descriptions, and career examples to make the content more balanced, practical, and relatable

✅ Clearer distinctions between similar-looking types, so close results are easier to interpret

✅ A more polished visual identity, moving toward a symbolic, archetypal, neon-cosmic design system

✅ Cleaner navigation and call-to-action language, so it’s easier to move through the test and explore results

✅ Fixed results-display issues, including a refresh bug that could cause Type Insights to disappear

✅ Clearer privacy, methodology, scoring, and legal copy, so the test is more transparent and trustworthy

✅ Updated positioning and differentiator copy, making it clearer how 16Selves differs from other personality tests

✅ Stronger SEO and social sharing metadata, so links display better when shared online

🔍 Still a work in progress

I’m still treating 16Selves as an evolving project.

It is not a scientific diagnosis, and it is not meant to trap anyone in a fixed identity. The goal is to create a more careful, transparent, and useful self-reflection tool for people interested in cognitive functions.

🌐 Try the updated test

If you tried the earlier version, I’d genuinely love for you to try the updated one and see whether the experience feels clearer, more accurate, or more trustworthy.

And if you’re new to it, I’d love your feedback too.

👉 Take the free test here: www.16selves.com

Thanks again to everyone who has already tested it, critiqued it, challenged it, or encouraged it. The current version is much better because of you.

I’ve been building a typology project/test called 16Selves because I’ve always felt that a lot of MBTI tests flatten people into stereotypes:

“creative = Ne,”

“emotional = Fi,”

“organized = J,” etc.

What I’ve been trying to do instead is build something a bit more psychologically nuanced:

relative function patterns rather than isolated scores,

probabilistic type hypotheses,

consistency across responses,

paired preferences (Fe vs Fi, Ne vs Ni, etc.),

and accounting for stress adaptations/personality masking.

I’d especially love ENFP feedback because ENFPs often seem unusually aware of:

identity vs performance,

emotional authenticity,

contradictions within themselves,

and the difference between curiosity, imagination, values, and social energy.

A few things I’d genuinely like input on:

What makes a typology result feel “seen” vs reductive?

Which MBTI questions feel shallow or misleading to you?

Do most tests misunderstand Fi and Ne?

And do you think personality is better understood as fluid patterns rather than rigid categories?

(Also yes, there are animal archetypes because typology should retain at least some sense of play. Are you guys happy to be a sparkly fox?)

I’ve been working on a typology project/test called 16Selves, mostly because I got frustrated with how many MBTI tests seem to reduce typing to:

stereotypes,

isolated function scores,

or “highest function = your type.”

What I’ve been experimenting with instead is a more structural/probabilistic approach:

relative function patterns rather than absolute scores,

paired preferences (Fe vs Fi, Ne vs Ni, etc.),

consistency across responses,

ambiguity handling,

and allowing multiple plausible type hypotheses when the profile is mixed.

I’d be genuinely interested in INTP criticism specifically because:

INTPs tend to notice internal inconsistencies quickly,

and because many online tests blur the line between Ti, social detachment, intellectual interests, anxiety, and introversion.

So I’d be curious:

what makes a typology system feel coherent vs arbitrary to you?

what kinds of questions immediately make you lose confidence in a test?

and do you think probabilistic typing is better than rigid categorical typing?

(Also yes, there are animal archetypes because typology shouldn’t feel like filing taxes.)