Rick's socionics test

[snegledmaca]

Right. You're saying should/shouldn't, not is/isn't. That's exactly what I meant, too.

As it stands, many questions boil down to "Do you hate people? If yes.. congratulations, you're Logical! If not.. congratulations, you're Ethical!"

Give examples. Because I disagree with that.

And also in you results you got ILE as an option as well. So the test does not necessarily think you are an ethical type.

In this and many other tests, it also seems that j/p is treated as a tested dichotomy, rather than allowing the functions to line up as they do. In a system like Socionics where functions are especially important, functions should be tested rather than dichotomies.

To my knowledge the test focuses on testing the IME-s, not the dichotomies. Well other then one part where reinin's dichotomies are taken into account. That is, what are you taking about, this test, to the best of my knowledge, does not do that. What makes you say/think otherwise?

 

[garbage]

Give examples. Because I disagree with that.

And also in you results you got ILE as an option as well. So the test does not necessarily think you are an ethical type.

It should be noted that I was exaggerating, and also generalizing about the nature of MBTI and Socionics tests. This particular test is much better than most others I've come across.

I can't remember specific questions that were red flags to me on this one, but there were a few about appreciating understanding your relationships, sizing up new people, being surprised by others' emotional reactions.. they just seem to ask if one has a lack of general interest in people to any degree.

To my knowledge the test focuses on testing the IME-s, not the dichotomies. Well other then one part where reinin's dichotomies are taken into account. That is, what are you taking about, this test, to the best of my knowledge, does not do that. What makes you say/think otherwise?

Maybe it does focus on the IMs. But types that differ only between j/p are pretty close, and that points to overemphasis on the dichotomies. If there is a part of this test that takes dichotomies into account, it is certainly possible that it does do what I describe. I have no idea; all I have to work with are the questions and the results.


And, look, you asked for our opinions on the validity of the test. I gave mine. You can disagree with it all you want, and I don't particularly have a vested interest in how valid this test is.

 

[snegledmaca]

I can't remember specific questions that were red flags to me on this one, but there were a few about appreciating understanding your relationships, sizing up new people, being surprised by others' emotional reactions.. they just seem to ask if one has a lack of general interest in people to any degree.

Well yes. As ethical IME-s have to do with a general interest in people, understanding relationships, sizing up new people and so on. How would you propose one asks about the usage of ethical IME-s without addressing those things? You objection doesn't make much sense to me.

Maybe it does focus on the IMs.

IME - Informational Metabolism Element.

IM - Informational Metabolism.

But types that differ only between j/p are pretty close, and that points to overemphasis on the dichotomies.

That might be the case for you, on your specific test result, but it doesn't have to be that way for everybody. And why would it point to an overemphasis on the dichotomies?

If there is a part of this test that takes dichotomies into account, it is certainly possible that it does do what I describe. I have no idea; all I have to work with are the questions and the results.

The dichotomies it does take into account do not exist in MBTI. Stuff like merry-serious, strategist-tactician and so on.

And, look, you asked for our opinions on the validity of the test. I gave mine. You can disagree with it all you want, and I don't particularly have a vested interest in how valid this test is.

I'm not disagreeing with you opinion, I'm disagreeing with you objections. I find some of the invalid. I would like to comprehend how it is that you find what you are saying valid.

 

[garbage]

I'm.. not entirely sure how to make this any clearer. I'll try my best. If you're going to pay attention to anything I say, pay attention to this:

You have told us to evaluate "whether we would call the result accurate or not," and why we would or would not. This test gave me fairly accurate results, but I am answering why they may have deviated to the degree that they have. I am stating that it would give me a more accurate result if it threw away any questions that had to do with j/p dichotomy and if it refined its ethics questions to be more clear and less "humanly universal." It may skew others' results if these changes were made, but that's not what you have asked me to consider.

If you don't understand what I'm trying to say in that paragraph, then this discussion is absolutely pointless.

The rest of this post is just gravy, and I'm pretty much done discussing the gravy. It's delving into the sort of detail that we haven't been asked for, that I just plain don't have answers to.

As it stands, I don't know exactly how to refine the test so that it produces more accurate results for everybody in the world.

That said, I don't know how to improve the test. Thankfully, the burden isn't on me to propose anything to improve the test.

Well yes. As ethical IME-s have to do with a general interest in people, understanding relationships, sizing up new people and so on

Yes, they do. However, they also take on responsibilities for valuing subjective worth, notions of fairness, and other elements that are less universal.

How would you propose one asks about the usage of ethical IME-s without addressing those things?

Verbatim from what I said above: I don't know how to improve the test. Thankfully, the burden isn't on me to propose anything to improve the test.

That might be the case for you, on your specific test result, but it doesn't have to be that way for everybody.

I didn't say that it had to be that way for everyone, nor that it was.

I'm talking about my results, and my opinion on them, and my opinion on why they might have come out as they have, which is exactly what you asked us to do. So the fact that this is the case for me on my specific result is the only aspect of this test that I've been asked to be concerned with, and that's the standpoint I've been coming from.

And why would it point to an overemphasis on the dichotomies?

Because a j/p switch is a very likely explanation for those types being so close together in the list. An ENFj's strong and valued functions are a ENFp's strong and ignored functions.

The dichotomies it does take into account do not exist in MBTI. Stuff like merry-serious, strategist-tactician and so on.

MBTI's J/P and Socionics' j/p are analogous. Not exactly the same, but analogous. That is the same dichotomy that I am taking issue with, insofar as it could have had the capacity to affect my results.

 

[Take Five]

Test results
LSI Your result
LII These types might also be considered
SLI
ILI
ESI These types are not very likely
EII
LSE
SEI
LIE These types are quite unlikely
IEI
SLE
ILE
ESE these types are extremely unlikely
EIE
SEE
IEE

 

[look.to.the.sky]

I agree that I don't like the test that much, not many people who are in the English Socionics community will advise you to take a test to find out your type. I hope you don't mind me responding to the last bits of your post, I just wanted to clear something up about Socionics.

Because a j/p switch is a very likely explanation for those types being so close together in the list. An ENFj's strong and valued functions are a ENFp's strong and ignored functions.

MBTI's J/P and Socionics' j/p are analogous. Not exactly the same, but analogous. That is the same dichotomy that I am taking issue with, insofar as it could have had the capacity to affect my results.

While this test is reminiscent of an MBTI test, the J/P dichotomy is not analogous to Socionic's rational/irrational dichotomy. J/P, and actually all of MBTI, bases their tests and dichotomies on behaviors more than your way of thinking. Socionics is more about your way of thinking, which could affect your behaviors (which is why it's so hard to test). Rational/irrational simply tells you what is the type's leading function, and while there are similarities between rational types and irrational types, you don't really decide rational/irrational like how MBTI practitioners decide whether someone is J/P. There is also the fact that MBTI functions and Socionics information elements (IEs) are not the same (at least, from what I remember, the functions seemed kinda vague to me when I learned them in MBTI a while ago) as well as the placement (Model A) makes all the types completely different. There are some ENFPs who go over as ENFps, and some who don't.

There is a hang up on this J/P thing of the similarities of the origin and names of the types. In MBTI, ENFJ and ENFP are very similar to one another, what the MBTI community would see is that they only have a one letter difference, and they are both in the same (MBTI) temperament, so therefore are very similar. In Socionics, ENFj and ENFp are VERY different, they are actually in opposing quadras because they value the exact opposite IEs. Quadra values are very important for typing and intertype relations overall. In MBTI, ENFJs and ENFPs would get along a lot more than ENFjs and ENFps in Socionics. Actually, they would have a tense time together because of the IEs they value and seek are very different. And even though they are skilled in similar functions, it doesn't work like MBTI, where you are "skilled" with Extraversion, iNtuition, and Feeling, as in MBTI, you would say those are their common strengths.

Started to notice that I was rambling, but I hope this was a good post anyway

 

[beyondaurora]

Your result: SLI (ISTp)

These types might also be considered: SEI (ISFp), ILI (INTp), IEI (INFp)

These types are not very likely: SLE (ESTp), SEE (ESFp), ILE (ENTp), IEE (ENFp)

These types are quite unlikely: LSI (ISTj), ESI (ISFj), LII (INTj), EII (INFj)

These types are extremely unlikely: LSE (ESTj), ESE (ESFj), LIE (ENTj), EIE (ENFj)

EDITED TO ADD: I think this test is very well put together. I liked that much of the time when I was giving my answers I was not thinking about how obvious the questions are linked with a certain dichotomy as I have found with nearly all MBTI tests.

 

[527468]

Socionics tests don't really work all too well.

I recommend tallying up which dichotomies you fit into, along with analysis of the information elements. That system personally works for me, and you don't have to fit all of them perfectly. Dichotomies - Wikisocion

The assumption is that a type actually does fit its dichotomies perfectly, as reinin disected the four traditional dichotomies into more observable counterparts. One person will only think they don't fit into that dichotomy because of the definition given or subjective example thought up is more or less vague, evasive, or faulty or the person himself is disoriented.

All this being said, socionics is time spent, like anything else. You most likely won't grasp it or your type until you continually seek to understand its means. You don't get to be that contradiction, you're not special enough.

 

[/DG/]

I think I failed.

:/

 

[BlackCat]

LMAO. WOW.

Those types are RANDOM. WHAT?

You have two Se leads, an Ni lead and an Ne lead. That test fails, you aren't the one that failed.

I got MY type, ESI, as 2nd to last. That test fails don't worry. It recommended the ILE (ENTp), my OPPOSITE, as my type, then IEE, then EII, then IEI.

 

[/DG/]

LMAO. WOW.

Those types are RANDOM. WHAT?

You have two Se leads, an Ni lead and an Ne lead. That test fails, you aren't the one that failed.

I got MY type, ESI, as 2nd to last. That test fails don't worry. It recommended the ILE (ENTp), my OPPOSITE, as my type, then IEE, then EII, then IEI.

Haha WOW. I think the test is in a nice format, but it doesn't work for us very well.

 

[snegledmaca]

I think I failed.

You took too long to answer the questions. I wrote about it in the opening post. If you take too long to answer the test it gives you a generic result which has nothing to do with your answers. It's a bug. Try answering again but faster.

I got MY type, ESI, as 2nd to last. That test fails don't worry. It recommended the ILE (ENTp), my OPPOSITE, as my type, then IEE, then EII, then IEI.

How plausible is it that you actually are an ESI and not merely think that you are one? That is, elaborate on how come you're ESI. And could you post the entire result table.

 

[Falcarius]

Sounds about right;

LII Your result
LIE These types might also be considered
ILI
LSI
EII These types are not very likely
ILE
LSE
SLI
EIE These types are quite unlikely
IEI
ESI
SLE
IEE these types are extremely unlikely
ESE
SEI
SEE

 

[Thalassa]

This is really bizarre.

According to Socionics I'm an ESFp, with ESTp, ENFp, and INTp being the next likely.

What the hell?

 

[look.to.the.sky]

This is really bizarre.

According to Socionics I'm an ESFp, with ESTp, ENFp, and INTp being the next likely.

What the hell?

Remember that this test isn't it all. Like how MBTI tests aren't completely accurate without your input, the test generates possibilities most likely based on temperament and some other functions. It's leads were most like that you are a type that's of the EP temperament that values Se and Fi. It's better to learn about Socionics information elements and function placements and type yourself

 

[Thalassa]

Remember that this test isn't it all. Like how MBTI tests aren't completely accurate without your input, the test generates possibilities most likely based on temperament and some other functions. It's leads were most like that you are a type that's of the EP temperament that values Se and Fi. It's better to learn about Socionics information elements and function placements and type yourself

When I went to Socionics.com and took their "yes" and "not" word choice test, I came up as ENFp, which is much more plausible.

 

[look.to.the.sky]

When I went to Socionics.com and took their "yes" and "not" word choice test, I came up as ENFp, which is much more plausible.

Here's a good resource for Socionics, which is a lot better than Socionics.com. Also, again, the tests aren't the best... But if you notice trends, then it's definitely something to consider

The Wikisocion

It's a wiki that's going for the English speaking community so far. I think it's a great place to start getting familiar with Socionics rather than Socionics.com. And if you're still interested, go to The 16 Types and lurk around

 

[Thalassa]

Here's a good resource for Socionics, which is a lot better than Socionics.com. Also, again, the tests aren't the best... But if you notice trends, then it's definitely something to consider

The Wikisocion

It's a wiki that's going for the English speaking community so far. I think it's a great place to start getting familiar with Socionics rather than Socionics.com. And if you're still interested, go to The 16 Types and lurk around

hey thanks! this is very helpful

 

[PuddleRiver]

ELL
May consider LII; IEI; ILI.

Mostly true of me, some things were off but not by very much. Pretty accurate.

 

[527468]