Normalized Test Results

[RSV3]

I have temporarily included--within the sociotest data on the user's sociotype page--the normalized results. Normalization in this context has a specific meaning. Start with the assumption that the probability distribution for the 16 sociotypes is equal in any randomized population sample (e.g., there are as many IEIs as LIEs, etc.). Normalizing the test data effectuates this assumption by removing any bias in the questions. As long as each question is minimally probative for the trait it is trying to test for (and this is an important assumption), then even if the question's wording is very biased towards one trait over the other, the normalization should nevertheless correct for this bias.

'Put in more simple terms, if 16 people take the test, regardless of the answers they provide (assuming though that there is at least minimal variation), normalizing the data would result in each person being a unique type from every other person. If 128 people take the test, there will be exactly 8 persons of each sociotype. I actually haven't checked to see if this is what is actually occurring, but this is what should be happening.

Normalizing the data becomes the optimal solution when (1) the sample size moves towards infinity and (2) the sample size becomes a more accurate representation of the general population (i.e., a randomized unbiased selection process). Unfortunately, neither of these conditions is present for my test; thus the normalized results will often be very innacurate (e.g., 10 LIIs could take the test yet only one of them may get a result of LII). Thus i don't put much weight on the normalized results and they are not used in the sociotype algorithm.

However I do find them helpful for certain aspects (the j/p dichotomy in particular), and more misleading in others (mistyping intuitives as sensors). The more biased the sample of test takers in a certain trait, the more inaccurate it will be.

If you have taken the sociotype test, you can see your normalized results by going here and clicking on "sociotype profile"; or if you haven't taken the test yet, go here to take it. If nothing else, think of your normalized result this way: you fit that sociotype better than at least 93% of the other users on the site, even if you aren't actually that type.

[aestrivex]

As long as each question is minimally probative for the trait it is trying to test for (and this is an important assumption), then even if the question's wording is very biased towards one trait over the other, the normalization should nevertheless correct for this bias.

what are you defining as traits? jungian dichotomies? reinin dichotomies? element preferences?

[RSV3]

As long as each question is minimally probative for the trait it is trying to test for (and this is an important assumption), then even if the question's wording is very biased towards one trait over the other, the normalization should nevertheless correct for this bias.

what are you defining as traits? jungian dichotomies? reinin dichotomies? element preferences?

Any of the traits the questions test for, which would include traits indicative of any of the types of dichotomies you listed as well as any combination thereof (e.g., alpha traits vs gamma traits).

[mikesilb]

Normalizing the data becomes the optimal solution when (1) the sample size moves towards infinity and (2) the sample size becomes a more accurate representation of the general population (i.e., a randomized unbiased selection process). Unfortunately, neither of these conditions is present for my test; thus the normalized results will often be very innacurate (e.g., 10 LIIs could take the test yet only one of them may get a result of LII).

Does this at all imply that if all of a sudden a large number of new people enter this bulletin board and take the test, the normalized type can change with time (even without retaking the test)? Or no matter what happens in the future (in terms of new people taking the test), does the normalized score remains constant?

I am almost interpreting this normalized score as a comparative measure used to "flatten" the distribution amongst the 16 types, irrespective of the "real" distribution of types around. Can this measure be viewed in this manner or am I inaccurate about this?

The other thing that I am wondering is that now that I know that I scored as "normalized" ESE, I am curious about the following: Could it be that since most of the people on this board are likely NT types (at least based on their own test results, self-assessment, and being typed by others), could my result as a (likely) dominant ethical type distort the measure and bring me to more of an SF normalized score (in contrast to the NT-mainstream of the board)? Or is this unrelated in any way to how the measure is scored/assessed?

If you could enlighten me regarding my understanding of this measure, that would be great! Thanks again!

[RSV3]

Does this at all imply that if all of a sudden a large number of new people enter this bulletin board and take the test, the normalized type can change with time (even without retaking the test)? Or no matter what happens in the future (in terms of new people taking the test), does the normalized score remains constant?

I am almost interpreting this normalized score as a comparative measure used to "flatten" the distribution amongst the 16 types, irrespective of the "real" distribution of types around. Can this measure be viewed in this manner or am I inaccurate about this?

The other thing that I am wondering is that now that I know that I scored as "normalized" ESE, I am curious about the following: Could it be that since most of the people on this board are likely NT types (at least based on their own test results, self-assessment, and being typed by others), could my result as a (likely) dominant ethical type distort the measure and bring me to more of an SF normalized score (in contrast to the NT-mainstream of the board)? Or is this unrelated in any way to how the measure is scored/assessed?

If you could enlighten me regarding my understanding of this measure, that would be great! Thanks again!

1. Yes, if even one more member took the test, it would likely adjust each other member's normalized result, albeit minimally. However I reiterate that this normalized result should not be taken too seriously for the points I made above.

2. I view the "real" distribution between the types as being an equal distribution for various reasons that are probably outside the scope of this discussion; I realize at least in the MBTI system, that there is an uneven distribution (e.g., 1-2% INTJs) which I view to be inherently arbitrary.

3. You scored as a normalized ESE, which I would interpret as actually being EIE due to the likely N->S error I discussed previously (i.e., that N types are more prevalent in socionics communities than are present in the general population).

If you have any more questions, let me know.