I vote good idea. The reason why I don't like a lot of the tests is because there are quite a few questions they ask that I have trouble understanding what they mean.

 

A scenario potentially introduces a different set of variables in it's interpretation, it could also lead to cultural bias. I prefer the purely abstract questions, they require you to think more, but are more specific. All MBTI tests ultimately rely on self-reporting and can therefore be inaccurate depending on the person, I'd prefer them to be direct on which quality each question tests, rather than use scenarios to disguise and further dilute it's meaning.

 

I had the same thought...would definitely like to see a test like that

 

I think this could be used to narrow down functions. CognitiveType does this but their test is incomplete. I think it's an interesting idea.
For example if I remember to figure out if you a Ti/Fe or Te/Fi user there would be a situation like "someone stops you to tell you a story." Then you can answer a few different ways "interrupt him and continue walking, listen to his story, empathically" (I don't remember).

 

Wonderful idea!

Many popular quizzes are so black and white that most people struggle with finding an answer, not to mention that concepts like justice, socialization and logic are very subjective in most cases.
Open ended questions would help people become more self aware.

 

I don't know... The reason why I don't ever finish those D&D alignment tests is because they're set up this way. They ask a question on what I would do in a specific situation, and then none of the answers match what I would do

 

That's a good suggestion.

Personally, I like being a part of the MBTI seminars themselves where you get to compare activity results with one another.

In a S-N exercise we were shown a picture of a puppeteer with a variety of other details. We had about 20 seconds to look at the picture and then a minute to discuss with our groups what we saw. I had assumed that it was a picture of a puppeteer because of the shape of the hands over what I assumed were puppets. One person, with a sensing preference, knew that he was a puppeteer because she could recall having seen the rings on the puppeteer's fingers with strings attached to the puppets. It blew my mind at the amount of detail they were able to recall in the picture, especially because I didn't even realize there were rings (among many other things).

In a T-F exercise we were given the scenario of:

Imagine that you have been invited to a party with a close friend

Your friend arrives, ready for the party. You look at what the person is wearing and say to yourself, “Oh no! Is he/she really going to wear that?”

What do you do and say in this situation? Discuss in your group.


The people that preferred feeling were stuck on deciding if it would be more hurtful to be up front and tell the friend, or not say anything and potentially let them be hurt at the party. The people that preferred thinking had the discussion over in about 30 seconds and decided to just tell the friend directly or make fun of them with sarcasm.

 

In a T-F exercise we were given the scenario of:

Imagine that you have been invited to a party with a close friend

Your friend arrives, ready for the party. You look at what the person is wearing and say to yourself, “Oh no! Is he/she really going to wear that?”

What do you do and say in this situation? Discuss in your group.


The people that preferred feeling were stuck on deciding if it would be more hurtful to be up front and tell the friend, or not say anything and potentially let them be hurt at the party. The people that preferred thinking had the discussion over in about 30 seconds and decided to just tell the friend directly or make fun of them with sarcasm.

This seems like an awfully limiting way to determine someone's type because there would be more ways to deal with that situation than only two ways. Personally, I wouldn't be on either side in that example because I'm pretty oblivious to what people wear, so I generally don't care what they show up in as I don't really notice to begin with. And if I did notice, I might think that it was cool they were breaking the norm of expectations at a party ((I'm the kind of person who thinks it'd be awesome if the president showed up for a speech one day in a Hawaiian shirt and shorts because regular formal suits get boring after a while)). Heck, maybe my friend showing up like that would make me wish I had worn weird clothes to the party, too xD unless it was something extremely stupid, like a clown outfit ((though why I am I even at a party to begin with... I hate parties lol. My "close friend" wouldn't think to invite me to one)). /proceeds to always overthink every situation-based question

There are many ways to react to a situation, and countless ways to think about the situation and motivate the reaction, so I don't think this method works all that well. MBTI already oversimplifies personality a lot but having multiple choice answers for reactions is simplifying it a bit too much, especially when MBTI is more about motivations behind actions rather than the actions themselves.

 

The vague and abstract nature of the test questions is undesirable and often makes them difficult to answer, but I don't think specific scenarios could solve that problem without introducing new ones (far more likely that none of the options fit how you'd react; might care more about act taken than motivation for act; &c.). The fault with them both is always going to be trying to numerically quantify your answer in relation to a function or dichotomy preference; as far as I can see, that's an inherent flaw with online testing that looks difficult to overcome.

 

humanmetrics...

4. "you feel involved watching TV soaps"
no, I just watch them cause they're in front of me

21. "You know how to put every minute of your time to good purpose"
that depends, wth is good purpose for you?

15. "You trust reason rather than feelings"

 

I agree with @CorrosiveThoughts: Specific situations like:' You see someone stealing. Do you report them or ignore them?" are flawed in several ways.
First of all, a question like that is flawed because the answers are too black and white with no grey at all. Maybe I'd like to talk to the guy and try to convince him to put it back or turn himself in.
Secondly, you would have to have a very detailed explanation of the situation with all of it's aspects available for each question. Maybe the person is a homeless person stealing a little bit of food or a blanket so he can live another day.
And lastly, as @CorrosiveThoughts mentioned, these situational questions are very susceptible to bias. For example, imagining the homeless person situation, the person being tested might have a strong aversion to homeless people and answer based on the fact that the person in question is homeless, not because the person is stealing.

I can see situation test like these as a very viable method of testing someone, people who can't answer the abstract questions well in particular, but the test would have to be personalized and would result in a much larger margin of error for typing.

 

True, it's much easier that way!

 

Scenario questions? No, unless presented open ended (i.e., not multiple choice but fill-in-the-blank or essay). Role play situations followed by talk-downs?

 

For tests, I think these would be better, often times I score a completely different type because how I understood the question =/= what they meant by it. Though I still prefer typing myself alone because I think I understand myself better then anyone else and know actual reasons for why I do something. Example, I might trust my feelings in a situation because I think that's the most logical choice in the moment, and if I answered ''I trust my feelings'' I might score a completely different type then I'd actually type myself.

Tests with open-ended choices are actually the questionnaires we have here on PerC, and it's a slower way of finding your own type. Also, the person who's typing you might misinterpret what you wanted to say (something similar to the example above) and type you differently then you'd type yourself.

 

Good points have been made thus far. I would agree that open-ended questions are more likely to reveal the layers of assumptions that are often projected upon multiple choice questions during personality type tests. With that said, I believe there is something to be said about taking different multiple-choice personality tests and looking for common threads that can be indicative of type. Assuming of course that one is answering the questions honestly and is more or less free of external/internal distractions, the results of such tests will likely converge upon the type of best fit. Both reflection and discussion are useful for the interpretation of such results. Each process is a vehicle on the road to understanding one's self.

Both testing styles, closed-ended questioning and open-ended questioning, serve a function in determining one's type. A good compromise between the styles would probably be to ask the participant to explain the reasoning behind the multiple choice option chosen. To address the situation in which none of the options apply, an other or N/A option should be added to such tests---a trait that some tests already exhibit.