On the “S” Index of Questionnaires

In the several days that have passed since the questionnaires were reloaded, more than 100 people have taken them, and 67 of them have already sent feedback on the number of character traits that did not fit out of all 130 predicted traits. The average number of character traits that did not fit - 14 (11%).

The higher the reliability index S, the smaller, on average, the number of predicted character traits that turn out not to fit after “trying them on” oneself. Down to zero “non-fitting” traits.

Those whose S was sufficiently high write in their replies:

Thank you for the results. Only 11 traits definitely did not fit.

The characterization turns out very accurate.

Simply amazing, it seems that you do not answer anything particularly special about yourself, yet the traits reveal your whole essence! (LIE)

Hello!

Of the 130 traits in the list, only 10 did not match. I agree with the final results (socionic type, Psychosophy type); this greatly helped to clarify some points. In particular, as regards Psychosophy — what positions logic and emotion occupy, and where greater uncertainty is actually felt.

Thank you very much for your efforts and the work you have done. Good luck and success in your further further scientific research!

Thank you for your promptness and for the maximally accurate, vivid description of the type. 10 traits out of 130 did not quite match; the rest seems as though it was copied from me. (S=0,27, EIE)

Thank you, of the 130 traits, 13 did not fit (S=0,20, ILI)

Hello!

Thank you for your prompt reply and the results.

In the list provided, there are no traits that definitely would not fit me. Overall, everything fits. (S=0,20, EII)

Hello, thank you very much!

In response 1 (male), all 130 traits fit; in response 2 (female), 4 did not fit. (S=0,23 LII; S=0,19 ESE)

What does the reliability index S depend on?

First, on the care and thoughtfulness of the answers.

Second, on accumulated life experience (so that there is something and someone with whom to compare oneself, and so that one has an objective and already established view of the characteristics of one’s own behavior in different situations)

Third, it also objectively depends on a person’s innate temperamental characteristics. If the person answering the questionnaire objectively differs markedly in their traits from the average person in the population (in any direction, whether in vertness, nality, or along any other axes), then the contrast of their type profile (S) will ultimately be high. But if their traits place them close to the center of the population, then no matter how carefully they answer the questionnaire, S (profile contrast) will still be low, and not nearly all the traits in the predictive list will fit.

After all, how is the predictive list of character traits compiled? It is something like a compass. If your type deviates from the center toward south-southwest (conventionally speaking), then the list of predicted traits shows which pronounced character traits should occur there, to the south-southwest of the center of the population. And the farther you move in this direction along the compass arrow, the more clearly and contrastively these traits will be expressed. But even if you are displaced from the center of the population toward south-southwest, if only by a very, very tiny amount, then the corresponding traits from the list will also be expressed in you only partially. And the S index of the type profile will also be low - no matter how hard you try to complete the questionnaire honestly and carefully.

Therefore, if your S index still comes out low from one occasion to the next, and the character traits from the control predictive list also consistently fit poorly, then most likely neither the questionnaire nor your insufficient care or inexperience is to blame. It may very well be that, in all your qualities, you objectively differ very little from the “ideal average person”.