Anyone know any questions to find out the following socionics traits?

[Azure Flame]

Does anyone know any good yes/no option A / option B questions I can ask to find out the following reinin dichotomies in socionics? I'm trying to figure out the most accurate questions that would control the person to answer in an honest and accurate fashion; I want to ask in such a way that the person is unable to interpret the question's intent.

For example: when testing irrational/rational, I don't want someone who already believes himself to be a judger, to respond to a question as a rational because the questions sound similar and the person is confident he is an MBTI judger. The person's own knowledge on typology would interfere with the test question.

Rational/Irrational
Aristocratic/Democratic
Emotivist/Constructivist

So for example, if I wanted to figure out if someone was a rational vs irrational, I'd ask the question, "Are you the most proactive during times of stability or instability?"

Thanks

 

[The Great One]

You should ask [MENTION=5684]Elfboy[/MENTION]

He may be able to answer this question.

 

[Elfboy]

You should ask [MENTION=5684]Elfboy[/MENTION]
He may be able to answer this question.

nah, I don't know much about socionics

 

[Evo]

Does anyone know any good yes/no option A / option B questions I can ask to find out the following reinin dichotomies in socionics? I'm trying to figure out the most accurate questions that would control the person to answer in an honest and accurate fashion; I want to ask in such a way that the person is unable to interpret the question's intent.

For example: when testing irrational/rational, I don't want someone who already believes himself to be a judger, to respond to a question as a rational because the questions sound similar and the person is confident he is an MBTI judger. The person's own knowledge on typology would interfere with the test question.

Rational/Irrational
Aristocratic/Democratic
Emotivist/Constructivist

So for example, if I wanted to figure out if someone was a rational vs irrational, I'd ask the question, "Are you the most proactive during times of stability or instability?"

Thanks

I know what ur asking...but I do not have the best functions to answer that....

Actually you should be good at it...

Ti does that right?

It's sounds like sociology class when we had to make surveys...they had to be unbiased...I still don't know how to fucking word a survey.

Ask an ISFJ or INTP maybe?

 

[Azure Flame]

I suppose I'd need an ISTP for the job. INTP's don't seem to understand how to control other peoples' reactions. Yes I do think its Ti now that you mention it.

 

[sulfit]

...Rational/Irrational...

It's difficult coming up with good questions that would be accurate, since the way people evaluate themselves on all these dichotomies is very variable. They don't know much about these dichotomies, and they don't know how they fare in comparison to others on these scales, so then they give misleading answers.

Couple years ago an EII I knew, who is pretty much a rational, got into socionics and decided that he was irrational because he didn't really understand the extent of some people's irrationality. He was so focused on his Si hidden agenda that he thought it is his leading function and typed himself as SEI initially. He read all the descriptions of rationality and irrationality from socionics sources, and still considered himself to be an irrational type for a good year. It wasn't until I brought to his attention how much more irrational our IEE friend is, and how many of their fall-outs with each other look like rational-irrational differences, that he started considering EII for himself. This is a problem for many socionics novices. They can read up about these scales, but they can't accurately estimate where they belong on these scales. Not enough understanding of themselves.

Another problem. Rationality is described inaccurately. The need to plan, for example, irrational types that are also 1s or 6s in enneagram may take up planning because it offers them extra stability. If they read socionics descriptions, they will mistakenly believe that they are rational types.

If you want to type people into temperaments, easier route is to determine static-dynamic and extroversion-introversion. It's more of a fail safe approach to typing people. Forget about the rational-irrational dichotomy, too many mistypes using this one.

So for example, if I wanted to figure out if someone was a rational vs irrational, I'd ask the question, "Are you the most proactive during times of stability or instability?"

Major flaws in this approach.

 

[Lady_X]

i don't think it's possible to come up with a question that can't/won't be interpreted.

even seemingly straightforward ones make me woozy with all the different possible ways it could mean

 

[Evo]

It's difficult coming up with good questions that would be accurate, since the way people evaluate themselves on all these dichotomies is very variable. They don't know much about these dichotomies, and they don't know how they fare in comparison to others on these scales, so then they give misleading answers.

Couple years ago an EII I knew, who is pretty much a rational, got into socionics and decided that he was irrational because he didn't really understand the extent of some people's irrationality. He was so focused on his Si hidden agenda that he thought it is his leading function and typed himself as SEI initially. He read all the descriptions of rationality and irrationality from socionics sources, and still considered himself to be an irrational type for a good year. It wasn't until I brought to his attention how much more irrational our IEE friend is, and how many of their fall-outs with each other look like rational-irrational differences, that he started considering EII for himself. This is a problem for many socionics novices. They can read up about these scales, but they can't accurately estimate where they belong on these scales. Not enough understanding of themselves.

Another problem. Rationality is described inaccurately. The need to plan, for example, irrational types that are also 1s or 6s in enneagram may take up planning because it offers them extra stability. If they read socionics descriptions, they will mistakenly believe that they are rational types.

If you want to type people into temperaments, easier route is to determine static-dynamic and extroversion-introversion. It's more of a fail safe approach to typing people. Forget about the rational-irrational dichotomy, too many mistypes using this one.


Major flaws in this approach.

Yea rational and irrational can be difficult to determine.

You bring up a very good point. That theres also a sort of scale...

That can apply to a lot of personality theories..even enneagram

 

[Thalassa]

There is at least one Russian website you can go to for that. You mean narrowing down, concept by concept, quickly yes?

I will be back someday soon with the link .

 

[Thalassa]

i don't think it's possible to come up with a question that can't/won't be interpreted.

even seemingly straightforward ones make me woozy with all the different possible ways it could mean

Yes but you ask people things like do they notice that which is there, or what is not...the one I took narrowed me pretty easily and the questions were nothing like mbti and couldn't really be manipulated unless you know a great deal about socionics.

I think that is what he means.

 

[Thalassa]

Http://socionics.org/test/renincalc.asp

If your computer asks to translate to English, you probably should say yes.

Have you seen this, it is too obvious but its great for the dichotomy and how they relate to the types.

Http://zhilkin.com/socio/en

 

[21%]

I'd like to read those questions as well. Socionics doesn't make sense to me. Usually when I read the descriptions I can't relate to anything...

 

[21%]

Http://zhilkin.com/socio/en

Oh thanks! That was very helpful. I guess I'm really EII

 

[Thalassa]

Oh thanks! That was very helpful. I guess I'm really EII

Cool yw. When I read SEE Fi and Gamma quad I feel like they've been spying on me. Gamma is the least social quadra, so even the extroverts apparently prefer small groups, and I also like that they emphasize that you're either more Se or Fi as well.m

 

[OrangeAppled]

^ That was one of the easier to understand socionics tests I've seen yet.

But when I go through the whole list, no type is left

Th first four give me IEI, which is usually how I test with socionics & is the most relatable profile. It's just hard for me to wrap my head around not being Fi-dom, but then Fi is defined so differently in socionics that I suppose I need to just see it as defining something else altogether.

When I clicked EIE, that was the closest to my choices (although not exact). But Hamlet as FeNi? Whaaaaaaaaaat? Neitzche as FeNi? Socionics is officially on crack.

As usual, EII sounds like e9

 

[Thalassa]

^ That was one of the easier to understand socionics tests I've seen yet.

But when I go through the whole list, no type is left

Th first four give me IEI, which is usually how I test with socionics & is the most relatable profile. It's just hard for me to wrap my head around not being Fi-dom, but then Fi is defined so differently in socionics that I suppose I need to just see it as defining something else altogether.

When I clicked EIE, that was the closest to my choices (although not exact). But Hamlet as FeNi? Whaaaaaaaaaat? Neitzche as FeNi? Socionics is officially on crack.

As usual, EII sounds like e9

You are supposed to pick the four most important to you ... I did that too...went down the whole list and wondered why there weren't any types left.

Socionics is a different system. ISFp sounds like a lazy hypochondriac ISFj in some descriptions, and ISFj sounds like a high Fi ISTJ.

ESFj really sounds like ESFJ though. And I think SEE Fi fits me quite well, for the most part.