my test (!!!)

[Russian]

According to this I am gamma SF, most likely ESI, but SEE was second highest

in your diagram must be some mistake. Fi may not exceed 80%, but you have 107%.
Although, I think the result is not much affected

 

[Russian]

• I also understand that, in each section, you're comparing each function to every other function, but I wonder if there is a way to do so in fewer than 8 tabs.
  
• A very, very minor nitpick: rather than list MBTI type, I'd list the Socionics four-letter code. The header could be "Four-letter code" rather than "MBTI," and the rational/irrational dichotomy (J and P) can be lowercase.

A - tab specifies T/F + their extro/intro
B - tab specifies N/S + their extro/intro
C - tab determines F/S + their extro/intro
D - tab specifies T/S + their extro/intro
E - tab determines F/N + their extro/intro
E - tab specifies T/S + their extro/intro
F - tab compares all introverted functions
G - tab compares all extrovert functions

Nothing superfluous, everything is compared to each other. But if we need to cut the test, we can remove the "green" questions "Arrange the aspects in order of importance to you".

Well, someone is not -valuing

Yeah, Ti is not my method of judgment
"pain function"

 

[Russian]

Can you explain me [MENTION=25993]Russian[/MENTION] what the second and the third part of the results mean?

the second and third charts I need to track their performance. The different results because different methods of counting.
Actually, no formula can match the human "soft" analysis.
Prefer to first analyze the chart.
Can see the three peaks of the orange line, it, Ne, Fi, Ti.
Consider the IEE. Ne+Fi is good, but Ti the IEE is not high, because it is painful function.
Consider the case of ILE. Ne+Ti is good, but Fi if IEE is not high, because it is painful function.
There are two options EII (Fi+Ne-enhanced Ti) or LII (Ti+Ne-enhanced Fi).
Moreover, the graph shows pain Se.

 

[Russian]

https://yadi.sk/d/mixiSWbojBzHA
fixed version v3.7