Overview of tests and practices used to form a Psychosophy type or accentuation hypothesis. None of the listed tools should be assumed psychometrically validated without reliability and validity data.
Available Tests
| Test | Items | Source description and boundary |
|---|---|---|
| Afanasyev test | 40 | attributed to the author of Psychosophy; authorship does not establish validity |
| Anette large questionnaire | 200 | popular community questionnaire; independent psychometric properties are not established |
| Typing questionnaire No. 1 | about 30–50 | metaprogram-based questionnaire |
Typing Methodology
Three Dichotomies
- Upper/lower: positions 1–2 versus 3–4.
- Process/result: processional versus result-oriented description.
- Dominance/adjustment: self-direction versus flexibility.
Priority-Listing Method
Asking a person to rank Physics, Emotion, Logic, and Will may generate an initial hypothesis only. It is not final typing. Numeric anecdotes such as “11 of 14 correct” remain community reports unless the reference criterion, blind procedure, sample, inter-rater reliability, and independent replication are documented.
Accentuations
Accentuations are an unofficial/community extension rather than core Afanasyev doctrine. Their number and structure require source verification. Candidate methods include behavioral observation, targeted questions, and interview.
Recommendations
- Repeat assessment at different times and explain instability.
- Combine questionnaire, interview, and concrete examples.
- Seek independent raters and report confidence and disagreement.
- Do not call a test validated without reliability, construct-validity, and external-criterion evidence.
Related Sources
Source Assessment
What the Source Claims
Psychosophy sources propose online tests, three position dichotomies, priority-listing, interviews, and accentuation analysis as ways to infer a tentative type.
Data or Evidence Provided
The page documents available methods and their decision rules; it does not report adequate reliability, validity, norms, or independent cross-validation.
Limitations
Self-report, coaching, language, current stress, test design, and school-specific assumptions can change the result.
What BWB Accepts
BWB accepts multi-method assessment only as a way to form revisable hypotheses and conversation questions.
What Remains Contested or Open
Test-retest reliability, inter-rater agreement, construct validity, and the incremental value of accentuations remain open.
Rejected or Historical-Only
BWB rejects certainty from a single test, covert typing, and using a tentative type to decide worth, safety, career, or relationship outcome.