my test (!!!)

[Russian]

Hi, friends!
I'm from Russia, some years I'm interested by socionics and I have enough experience for creation of tests.
I suggest you to pass my test, I hope it will be pleasant for you, after all it differs from other tests for definition of socionic type.
As you know, MBTI and socionics were born from C.GJung's typology and are very similar.
The divergence of tipologiya is observed in the relation the introverted types, in socionics "I __ P" is the type perceiving on the first function (as well as the extrovert), and in MBTI "I __ P" is perceiving on the second function.
My test is made for elimination of this shortcoming. Not the alphabetic code, but your real functions will be result of dough.

To pass a test, you will need to download *.xls -file, to fill it and to lay out here printscreen of result.

P.S. my English not good, I'm sorry. If you see a mistake in the test, write to me and I will correct it.

 

[Russian]

My test is here
v3.7.1​

acc types:

 

[Russian]

my results:

 

[Bush]

Looks like we have to request permission via our Google accounts. I'd like to try it out and offer some feedback etc., but is there a way to share it without that restriction?

 

[Russian]

Oh, jscrothers, can I ask you to use a simple word? otherwise it's difficult to capture the essence
You can't download a file? With this cloud will turn out? disk.yandex

 

[Kullervo]

My results:

IEI or EIE I guess, depending on what parts of the test you choose to weight.

 

[Ghost]

Is this thing telling me I'm ESFj or ISFp?

Man, I really don't get socionics.

 

[Bush]

Oh, jscrothers, can I ask you to use a simple word? otherwise it's difficult to capture the essence
You can't download a file? With this cloud will turn out? disk.yandex

Sorry.

I meant that with the first link, we had to sign in using Google. I didn't want to do that. So I asked if there was a way to take the test without using Google.

But I looked again and you have that "alternative link" that I should have seen at first My mistake

So, I'm taking your test now and I'll tell you my results and what I think in a little bit.

 

[Bush]

A picture "album" of my results:
Imgur: The most awesome images on the Internet

Screenshots of results pages:

I relate to both Gamma-Ni (LIE, ILI), with LIE coming out on top. Many others see me as LIE when they see me or interact with me. It is interesting to me that LIE and ILI came out tied. Not that this is incorrect, but it is interesting to me.


Here is my honest feedback.

The first thing I noticed was that you're very good with using Excel. The graphs are very impressive.

Many of my inputs to "START", such as "My Experience" and "My first function", did not show up on the "result 1" page. This is very minor issue.

Additionally, the questions feel like they are repeated many, many times. At first, I felt like I was literally answering the same question over and over again. It took me a while to understand that the responses were actually different on each tab. I don't know what the solution to this is. It may take some work.

You provide the names of the sociotypes, such as Hamlet and Tom Sawyer, in the results pages. I would recommend also listing the three-letter code in addition to these names. For example, you could replace "Jack London" with "LIE - Jack London".

__

I hope that this is not too wordy, please let me know if you need me to rephrase or simplify:

For the third section. When you say "What skill would you like to develop more?", you say that 1 is "most desirable" and 4 is "most useless". I questioned whether I interpreted this correctly. I assume that a 1 means that I would really like to develop that skill. Does a 4 indicate that I don't care to develop the skill, rather than that I see the skill as useless?

For example, if I am a Jack London (LIE, ), I know very well how to access , but also and . Even if I don't care about or , I still know already how to use them. As a Jack London, though, I would care to develop and more. But I would not care to develop and since I see those as useless. So as a Jack London, then, I want to develop and , but I do not need to develop , , , , , and any more. So I would expect to mark and as a "1" or "2", but any of the other six as "3" or "4".

My question is very wordy, but I think the solution is simple. I think this is a minor issue with English. You could replace the second line in with, as an example, "1 (want to develop) to 4 (don't care to develop, or I am already good with it)".

 

[Russian]

Is this thing telling me I'm ESFj or ISFp?
Man, I really don't get socionics.

Unfortunately this happens, it does not take to heart.
You should assume that the experiment has failed, and the test result is lying.
I have to assume that it's my fault and improve testing method.
It's my fault, not socionics.

 

[Ghost]

Unfortunately this happens, it does not take to heart.
You should assume that the experiment has failed, and the test result is lying.
I have to assume that it's my fault and continue soverenstvovaniya testing method.
It's my fault, not socionics.

Aww, I didn't mean to blame you. I've never gotten consistent results on socionics tests, and the descriptions/profiles are a little confusing for me. This isn't even the first time I've scored highly for ESE and SEI (if those are the right types).

It's all good.

 

[Russian]

The first thing I noticed was that you're very good with using Excel. The graphs are very impressive.

oh, thank you, good to hear (or "to see" )! I have longer experience in such matters, it is my tenth socionics test.

My question is very wordy, but I think the solution is simple. I think this is a minor issue with English. You could replace the second line in with, as an example, "1 (want to develop) to 4 (don't care to develop, or I am already good with it)".

Thanks for the feedback! Message understandable to the full, such as comments and suggestions I received from the Russian-speaking friends. Sometimes you need to put a "1", and wants to put all the "4". "Between two evils' tis not worth choosing".

Tell me you do not mind what you have in MBTI first function Fe, but socionics is Te? I'm not going to give you another BMI, I humanly curious.
Best regards!

 

[Russian]

It's all good.

Ok, ok, no problem.
Your result is
Don Quijote, ILE

 

[Ghost]

Your result is View attachment 14490
Don Quijote, ILE

Hah. Is that for me? If it is, I'm totally going to put ILE on my profile.

 

[Bush]

Tell me you do not mind what you have in MBTI first function Fe, but socionics is Te? I'm not going to give you another BMI, I humanly curious.
Best regards!

Let's see.

I would blame it on the differing definitions of the functions/IMs. Kind of like how ENTJs in MBTI are seen as "leaders," where in Socionics SLEs (ESTp) are seen as leaders. Socionics's ENTJs (LIEs) are seen differently. They're even seen as "spacey," though not as much as -doms.

in Socionics focuses a lot on creating emotions around you. focuses on reading the psychological "distance" between you and others. I value that part, and I've gotten to be good with it. I have been mistyped as IEE as a result on other forums, and I have mistyped myself the same way.

MBTI's definition of Fe throws and into a weird blender, and its Fi is kind of related but is also different. To me, Fe is a "good enough" fit. Ni trumps it all, though. But "good enough" is still not very "good." The way functions are defined, used, and interpreted under MBTI is vague. I have some confidence to them, but not a lot.

If I wanted to put authorities on my side, I could also say that a Socionics practitioner read me as LIE, and an MBTI practitioner (and an MBTI test) as ENFJ.

 

[Russian]

the biggest problem in socionics, is absence standards of understanding of functions. Everyone interprets value of functions in own way and therefore each guru has "socionics". Therefore constantly it is necessary to look back, in the past, and to re-read Jung's books. For lose'nt touch with the primary source as it was made by Aushra. However, my test is made according to Aushra's descriptions, I took them from Wikipedia.
Штурвал There is one author, he interprets functions rather interestingly. Its surname Kalinauskas. He develops the model, calls its "steering wheel", but in principle it is the same ideas of Jung, it is only twice more than types - 16.
Thanks to that that is a lot of authors, it is a lot of also different schools and the principles of typing. And so opinions of two different sotsionik concerning one person meet on average in 30% of cases.

 

[Russian]

Hah. Is that for me? If it is, I'm totally going to put ILE on my profile.

0,57 - correlation not big, usually I trust correlation higher than 0,80. But nevertheless there is a positive correlation with Don Quixote.

 

[Mal12345]

I don't want to take the test, I might come out as Alexandree dumb-ass.

 

[Russian]

I don't want to take the test, I might come out as Alexandree dumb-ass.

it is very valuable information for me

 

[á´…eparted]

I have been meaning to do this since last week, but I haven't had computer access until now.

I don't know any of the top people so I can't comment on this part of the results.

So... I'm SLE?

So... hunh. I don't know socionics very well, just enough to get by. What I DO know, is that I am 100% Beta quadra beyond a shadow of a doubt, and I have known this for a long time now. The results support that. Within this, I know I am not IEI. But... that's about where it stops. Since I am ENFJ in MBTI, being EIE makes the most sense. However, a while ago someone suggested that I am actually LSI, which fits, but it's so diametrically opposed to ENFJ in MBTI that it's kind of irrational.

What hasn't been considered before though, is SLE. In the past year I have learned that I am a very extroverted individual. By this metric this eliminates LSI as a possibility, which many here would regard as impossible anyway. This means I am either EIE, or SLE, and these results suggest SLE. Interestingly, this was suggested by a few people about a month ago, but I wrote it off. This supports that though and brings new light to it. Further considering Fe didn't really show up all that strongly.

I have read descriptions of EIE before, and they do fit me, but whenever I read descriptions of Fe by itself (the socionics definition) it... doesn't feel right. I'm not very good at controlling how other people feel, and I don't try to do that. However, I am very adept at manipulating people, and years back had to make a conscious effort to stop doing that. It's more done towards social interactions though, not so much with "feelings and emotion". I think it's a cardinal sin to try and manipulate and toy with another persons emotions.
[MENTION=25993]Russian[/MENTION] any thoughts on this?