Well, what can I say, memory sucks and I couldn't think of any new words to add.
You're right though, it probably did botch the results.
For my own sake, I'll take the test again, cause I'm genuinely curious what result I would get.
Giant: Passion
Dwarf: Victim
Soul: Control
Persona: Drive
Guide: Bondage (HAH!)
Imago: Ambition
Shadow: Betrayal
Spectre: Sorrow
Station: Restraint
Battle: Lust
Destiny: Struggle
This tests suggests I'm ISFP (close to the centers, like my old INTJ). Fascinating.
I wonder how many different results could form if the level 1 variables after being filled in had the order randomized?
by Turncoat
I wonder how many different results could form (...)
Hahaha, it's a very cleverly designed prank to lure you into earnest introspection. The results have absolutely nothing to do with the words entered whatsoever, all the software works with is the variables/combinations of your choices in the "Type" dichotomies (inner/outer, abstract/concrete, feeling/reason etc.)
It banks on the principle that the first-level words you enter are of some sort of personal significance (relevance whatever) - then it goes on making you to explore/distill the meanings assigned to each individual first-level words by levels of association, building from the mundane to the abstract/conceptual until you come upon that "deep and profound" core-level 'watchwords' in the finishing phase. You sure have noticed how the words progressed from mundane/objective/empirical/concrete to conceptual/abstract along the progression of the test.
Having been bored enough i took the test a few times, with various inputs:
- using the words of a nursery rhyme in my mothertongue (non-indogerman language with latin lettering, so it was gibberish in English) without paying attention to the association levels, i just entered the words in the order they come throughout all levels.
- using the terminology of my favourite bag line - the first-level words being season-specific colour names translated to english (like sandstone, sky, oregano, mystery, cement, liturgy, storm, putty, cognac, oatmeal, papyrus & etc. etc.). Secondary (1st associative) line of words being the style names across the colour spectrum (like city, hook, mid-afternoon, whistle, shrug, drum, brief, work, step, etc etc.) Tertiary line (further association) being the materials specific to the previous combinations (goat, lamb, camel, monk, calf etc. etc.) - and so forth. As you can see, the first two (but esp. the second-level) words were stripped from their original meanings and assigned to something altogether else yet still relatable on a subjective level.
- playing by the presumed rules, entering names of things i hold in high regard (like sea, stone, sun, machine, woods, tower, train, sail, sword, potato, house, silk, paper, slow, drink, pork, orange, etc. etc., in no particular order). Now, procuring an associative link between for example sun & train required a stretch of introspective reminiscence, but there it was: carbol (the smell of railways on hot summer days, back when the sleepers were still made of wood = smell of travel and excitement. Or between sword & silk = sweaty, that's how you feel under all that plastron & gear they make you wear at fencing classes, no matter how wispy little silk you wear underneath. Well those two were relatively easy, unlike tower / potato & so forth - or, as in the next level, trying to find a verbal association between languid and carbol & you name it...)
Each of those inputs yielded slightly different results, yet all appeared to make sense.
That's all to point out how the test relies on building & pondering upon a personal narrative from esp. the 2nd (1st associative) level. While giving jackshyte about your holy very own individual pick of words, as all software are bound to. In short, the test is designed to open up your eyes to a story unfolding in your head and there alone; assigning words (language) to the story; and exploring the dynamics of the language of your personal narrative. Now, that's an awful lot more than the average online test has to offer, so i say it's not a bad one. As well documented thus far by members sniffing at one another's narratives.
by TurncoatThe interactions between the words each person made reducing themselves to becoming progressively more conceptual shows a fragment of how they think.
Yes indeed. And mapping out that particular path of an individual's progression to abstract/conceptual with the aid of the simplest automation is what makes this software beautiful. It puts your mind into motion.
The inputs matter as far as seeing what connections they pulled out of seemingly nothing.
There's a world of difference between "seemingly nothing* and nothing. A good start could be pulling words from a language you don't speak at all for the first two 8-sets, then running with that.
As you can see from looking at TK's choices for example, the results would more likely yield consistency, while others might wildly go into other areas.
Indeed TK's choice of words seem like a well-rehearsed questionnaire for Match.com, but i doubt the actual word choices have any relevance to the results. it's all in the post-word steps at the conclusion of the test.
