SoulTraceSoulTrace

Michael Caloz Test: A Shorter Cognitive Functions MBTI Assessment

Table of Contents

By

- 8 min Read

Michael Caloz Test: A Shorter Cognitive Functions MBTI Assessment

The Michael Caloz test is a free online MBTI assessment that uses cognitive functions to determine your personality type. What sets it apart from other function-based tests: it's shorter, more visual, and uses a forced-choice format between function pairs rather than rating individual statements.

If you've found Sakinorva overwhelming or 16Personalities too simplistic, Caloz sits in between—offering function-based typing without the complexity of interpreting eight independent scores.

How the Michael Caloz Test Works

The test presents choices between pairs of cognitive functions. Instead of rating "how much does this statement describe you?" on a scale, you choose which of two descriptions resonates more.

The forced-choice format works through function axes:

  • Ne vs. Si: Exploring possibilities vs. referencing past experience
  • Ni vs. Se: Internal vision vs. present-moment engagement
  • Te vs. Fi: External logic vs. internal values
  • Ti vs. Fe: Internal frameworks vs. social harmony

Each choice simultaneously tells the algorithm about two functions. Choosing Ne-heavy descriptions over Si-heavy ones affects your scores on both.

After completing the questions, you receive your four-letter type along with a breakdown of how strongly you prefer each function.

The Visual Approach

Caloz uses visual descriptions and scenarios rather than abstract statements. Instead of "I prefer to think systematically," you might see two contrasting approaches to a situation and choose which feels more natural.

This reduces the problem of different people interpreting the same statement differently. A concrete scenario is harder to misread than an abstract trait description.

Scoring Method

The test calculates your type through function pair preferences rather than absolute function scores. This avoids a common Sakinorva problem—scoring high on functions that theoretically shouldn't coexist in one type.

By measuring relative preferences within pairs, Caloz constrains results to theoretically valid type assignments. You can't simultaneously prefer both Te and Fi equally because the test forces a choice between them.

Michael Caloz vs. Other MBTI Tests

vs. 16Personalities

16Personalities measures four dichotomies directly (I/E, N/S, T/F, J/P) through self-report statements. It's quick, clear, and gives unambiguous results.

Michael Caloz measures cognitive function preferences and infers your type. It takes longer but aims for deeper accuracy by getting at the mechanisms behind type.

The trade-off: 16Personalities gives you one clear answer fast. Caloz gives you a more theoretically grounded answer with more effort.

vs. Sakinorva

Sakinorva measures all eight functions independently, generating scores that often conflict with each other and produce different types depending on calculation method.

Michael Caloz constrains results through forced choices, producing a single type recommendation. You lose the nuance of seeing all eight scores but gain clarity.

If Sakinorva tells you three different things and you leave confused, Caloz is more likely to give you one answer you can work with. For a deeper dive into how Sakinorva handles multiple calculation methods, the trade-offs become clearer.

vs. Keys2Cognition

Keys2Cognition uses a similar function-based approach but with Likert-scale ratings rather than forced choices. It's one of the older cognitive functions tests and provides development-level indicators for each function.

Michael Caloz is newer, more visually designed, and simpler to interpret. Keys2Cognition offers more granular data but requires more effort to understand.

Strengths of the Caloz Approach

Reduced ambiguity: Forced choices eliminate the "everything is a 4 out of 5" problem where people rate themselves moderately on everything.

Cleaner results: One type recommendation instead of three conflicting ones.

Better user experience: Visual, scenario-based questions are more engaging than walls of abstract statements.

Faster completion: The forced-choice format covers more ground per question, requiring fewer items total.

Theoretical alignment: Function pairs match how cognitive functions theory actually works—functions come in opposing pairs on axes, so measuring them that way makes structural sense.

Limitations

Forced Choice Doesn't Reflect Reality

Real personality isn't either/or. You might genuinely use both Ne and Si heavily. Forcing a choice between them creates artificial precision—the test appears decisive where you're actually balanced.

This is the fundamental tension between clean results and accurate measurement. Caloz chose clarity over nuance.

Still Built on Unvalidated Theory

All cognitive function tests share the same foundational problem: the eight functions and their supposed stacking order lack strong empirical support. A better-designed test measuring poorly validated constructs is still limited by those constructs.

Making the test shorter and clearer doesn't solve the underlying question of whether cognitive functions exist as described. For a broader look at why MBTI faces criticism, the issues run deeper than any individual test can fix.

Limited Granularity

You don't see how close the choice was. Did you barely prefer Te over Fi, or was it overwhelming? Sakinorva's eight-score approach at least shows you the margins. Caloz abstracts this away.

Sample Size Concerns

As a free test by an individual developer (not a research institution), the Caloz test hasn't undergone the kind of validation studies that established instruments have. It works through theoretical logic rather than empirical calibration.

When the Caloz Test Makes Sense

You're new to cognitive functions: The visual, forced-choice format makes function concepts accessible without requiring prior knowledge.

You want one clear answer: If Sakinorva's multiple results frustrated you, Caloz's single-type output is refreshing.

You're exploring MBTI theory: It's a good intermediate step between 16Personalities' simplicity and Sakinorva's complexity.

You want a quick assessment: The forced-choice format covers ground faster than rating 100 individual statements.

When to Look Elsewhere

You want scientific validity: No cognitive functions test meets modern psychometric standards. For validated personality measurement, the Big Five framework has decades of empirical support.

You want nuance: If you're between types or use functions from different stacks, Caloz will force you into one box rather than showing you the ambiguity.

You want actionable insight: Knowing your type is interesting but rarely actionable. For specific contexts like career decisions or relationships, different tools serve better.

You want modern methodology: Adaptive assessments that select questions based on your previous answers can achieve better precision with fewer questions. The SoulTrace assessment uses Bayesian active learning to converge on your personality pattern—each question is chosen to maximally inform your specific profile.

Making Sense of Your Caloz Results

If you've taken the test:

Check if the type description resonates. The four-letter code matters less than whether the associated behaviors and preferences match your lived experience.

Compare with other assessments. If Caloz, Sakinorva, and 16Personalities all agree, that convergence means something. If they disagree, you're in the gray zone between types—which is normal.

Read about both your type and close alternatives. If you typed as INTP, also read INTJ, ISTP, and ENTP. Often the "wrong" type resonates more, revealing where the test's forced choices may have pushed you in an inaccurate direction.

Don't over-identify with the result. Any personality test is one data point. Your self-knowledge should weigh more than test output.

Beyond MBTI Testing

The cognitive functions approach—whether through Caloz, Sakinorva, or other tests—represents one philosophy of personality assessment: define theoretical constructs, then measure them.

An alternative philosophy: measure observable patterns directly and let meaningful categories emerge from data. This is how the Big Five was developed, and it's how modern archetype-based assessments work.

The SoulTrace assessment takes this empirical approach:

  • Five psychological drives measured directly through behavioral preferences
  • Adaptive methodology selecting each question based on your prior answers
  • 25 archetypes emerging from combinations of drives, not from theoretical prescription
  • Probability distributions showing how closely you match each pattern

No function stacks to debate. No forced choices between theoretical opposites. Just measurement of how you actually think and behave, mapped to intuitive personality patterns.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is the Michael Caloz test accurate?

It appears to type people consistently with its own methodology. Whether it types people accurately depends on whether cognitive functions theory itself is valid—which remains scientifically uncertain.

How long does the Michael Caloz test take?

Typically 10-15 minutes. Shorter than Sakinorva, longer than 16Personalities.

Is Michael Caloz test free?

Yes, completely free with no paywalled results.

Why did I get a different type on Caloz vs. 16Personalities?

Different measurement approaches. 16Personalities measures dichotomies; Caloz measures function preferences. Neither is definitively correct—they're different operationalizations of the same theoretical framework.

Should I trust my Caloz result or my Sakinorva result?

Neither deserves unconditional trust. If they agree, that's your best bet. If they disagree, the honest answer is you don't fit cleanly into one type—which is true for most people.

Is Caloz better for beginners?

Yes. The visual format and forced-choice structure make cognitive functions more accessible than Sakinorva's complex scoring output. It's a good entry point into function-based typing.

Try a Different Framework

The Michael Caloz test offers an elegant take on cognitive functions typing. Clean design, clear results, accessible format.

But if you want personality insight grounded in stronger methodology, try the SoulTrace assessment. Adaptive Bayesian questioning. Five measurable psychological drives. Twenty-five archetypes with probability distributions. No theoretical function stacks—just direct measurement of how you think and behave.

Twenty-four questions. Mathematically optimized. Results that tell you something you can actually use.

Soultrace

Who are you?

Stay in the loop

Get notified about new archetypes, features, and insights.