New and Awesome Socionics Test

[that's not my name]

LOL...this is even older than that. I posted a thread like this last year in December http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/online-personality-tests/80747-socionics-test.htmlunless this is a new version

I think a good way to avoid this in the future would be to put the link of the particular test in the description from now on so a quick search could be done.

 

[erg]

I don't know. I browsed the entire socionics subforum and I couldn't find a thread for this particular test. It didn't occur to me to look around in other areas to see if somebody had posted it already. The solution is to simply merge all the threads into one.

 

[Bush]

The "Send" button launched a "Error: 405 Method Not Allowed" in a separate window

 

[Polaris]

I got ILI>IEI>EII>EIE>LII and Ni>Fi>Ne>Ti>Fe. These results are fairly accurate for me.

 

[Forever]

Got IEE the highest followed by IEI.

 

[Forever]

IEE > IEI > EII > EIE > LII > ILI > SEI > ILE (positive range)

 

[Yama]

Thoughts before taking test: I'm a super clear socionics Fe user to the point I test as Fe dom often, but socionics Si is really weird and literal/sensual/physical and I don't relate to that probably because I'm sp last in enneagram, so I predict I'm going to score as an EIE (or ESE) as I usually do on socionics tests. Also, my results may be affected by my depression/GAD/OCPD.

Thoughts during test: there are too many fucking questions I need to pee but refuse to until I'm done with this but it's SO FUCKING LONG. Also, I hate questions about how many kids you want to have, that shit isn't type or function related.

Results of test:

EII

what the fuck

this test is whack lol

 

[magpie]

lol I got EIE.

31. I often warn, scold and criticize others, lounging in a chair with a poker face.

^ me.

 

[RedAmazoneFriendZone]

Extrovert
Sensing
Ethical
Irrational
Peripheral
Constructivist
Ascending
Strategic
Obstinate
Dynamic
collectivist
Questim
Farsighted
Right
Positive


ESFP SEE

First time I fall on the right type with socionics...

 

[Mal12345]

I got some feedback on this new and awesome and exciting Socionics test:

"That's extremely tiring for the mind when your language isn't English. I feel like I've been solving enigmas for an hour."

 

[erg]

I'm just trying to lure people into this friggin' subforum. I've moved past MBTI at this point, and I like this place, so I would like to interact with people here on the subject of socionics. But for some reason, people here in this forum seem to have figured out their socionics type (and surprinsgly so; many people seem to have got it correct), and they no longer consider socionics an interesting subject. I find this puzzling, since socionics is a hundred times more detailed, accurate, deep, and useful than MBTI (IMO).

 

[Tater]

i typically get ile on these tests.

 

[Tater]

I'm just trying to lure people into this friggin' subforum. I've moved past MBTI at this point, and I like this place, so I would like to interact with people here on the subject of socionics. But for some reason, people here in this forum seem to have figured out their socionics type (and surprinsgly so; many people seem to have got it correct), and they no longer consider socionics an interesting subject. I find this puzzling, since socionics is a hundred times more detailed, accurate, deep, and useful than MBTI (IMO).

i agree that socionics has more context and data to back it up.

i think it hasn't gained much traction here because this site originated from intpcentral, which was mbti based. additionally, the majority of tc members live in america, where the russian context of socionics is lost to them. on top of that, the membership of this site mostly mixes mbti with jungian cognitive functions, which makes socionics seem redundant by comparison.

however, some of the users here actually prefer socionics, so breaking the ice isn't impossible. i challenge you to give it more popularity here.

 

[Jeremy8419]

I've probably studied it more than anyone in this hemisphere, and it strikes me as having the same core issue as the other binary personality systems: it doesn't take sex into consideration.

Within Socionics, it is treated as mathematical, using such to classify categories of personality types and their interactions, but has no way to objectively measure such. In example, SEE and ILI are mathematically considered duals, but this is without consideration for sex. If Male is 0 and Female is 1, then a male SEE and a male ILI would have the opposite reactions of a female SEE and a male ILI.

Really, all of these personality systems, outside of a surface level, seem like self-defense rationalizations to cover core lack of understandings of fundamental differences in sex; the whole things seem "confused."

 

[Psyclepath]

I've probably studied it more than anyone in this hemisphere, and it strikes me as having the same core issue as the other binary personality systems: it doesn't take sex into consideration.

Within Socionics, it is treated as mathematical, using such to classify categories of personality types and their interactions, but has no way to objectively measure such. In example, SEE and ILI are mathematically considered duals, but this is without consideration for sex. If Male is 0 and Female is 1, then a male SEE and a male ILI would have the opposite reactions of a female SEE and a male ILI.

Really, all of these personality systems, outside of a surface level, seem like self-defense rationalizations to cover core lack of understandings of fundamental differences in sex; the whole things seem "confused."

I remember you pissing off everyone on PersonalityCafe with your completely trollish logic.

One basic examination of the things you say shows a clear lack of focus on ethics. All of what you say is logic, and yet somehow you identify as an ethical type.

Am I supposed to be entertained?

P.S. And also it's "the whole thing seems confused" not "the whole things seem confused". When you're trying to talk like a credible, professional source of information, I'd ask you had the time to check your grammar. It just makes you look slobbish otherwise.

 

[Jeremy8419]

I remember you pissing off everyone on PersonalityCafe with your completely trollish logic.

One basic examination of the things you say shows a clear lack of focus on ethics. All of what you say is logic, and yet somehow you identify as an ethical type.

Am I supposed to be entertained?

P.S. And also it's "the whole thing seems confused" not "the whole things seem confused". When you're trying to talk like a credible, professional source of information, I'd ask you had the time to check your grammar. It just makes you look slobbish otherwise.

It's not trollish logic at all. It's called Deontology. You're confusing emotionalism for ethics.

P.S. - check your reading comprehension skills before trying to play grammar Nazi. I was referring to more than one system.

 

[Psyclepath]

It's not trollish logic at all. It's called Deontology. You're confusing emotionalism for ethics.

P.S. - check your reading comprehension skills before trying to play grammar Nazi. I was referring to more than one system.

I... see. Cool. You're clearly a very sophisticated, intellectual fellow - moreso even than myself

 

[Jeremy8419]

I... see. Cool. You're clearly a very sophisticated, intellectual fellow - moreso even than myself

You didn't actually address any of my points in my original post. Here's some questions for you to consider:
1) Is there a fundamental and unchangeable difference between males and females?
2) Personality systems are about individuals in relation to others in society and the relationships that exist between them, so why do personality systems personality systems ignore the sex of individuals?

Also, you should look into Inert/Contact, Emotivist/Constructivist, and Role Function.

 

[Jeremy8419]

Test beta - AIM | AIM

EDIT: IF it ain't working on firefox, try with another browser

Sorry, tried to do it, but got to around question 50, realized there were 160 total, and gave up. Honestly, that test seems pretty ridiculous and more like someone was making an amateur MBTI test than anything Socionics related.

 

[erg]

i agree that socionics has more context and data to back it up.

i think it hasn't gained much traction here because this site originated from intpcentral, which was mbti based. additionally, the majority of tc members live in america, where the russian context of socionics is lost to them. on top of that, the membership of this site mostly mixes mbti with jungian cognitive functions, which makes socionics seem redundant by comparison.

however, some of the users here actually prefer socionics, so breaking the ice isn't impossible. i challenge you to give it more popularity here.

Thanks for the info. I can try.

Within Socionics, it is treated as mathematical, using such to classify categories of personality types and their interactions, but has no way to objectively measure such. In example, SEE and ILI are mathematically considered duals, but this is without consideration for sex. If Male is 0 and Female is 1, then a male SEE and a male ILI would have the opposite reactions of a female SEE and a male ILI.

Really, all of these personality systems, outside of a surface level, seem like self-defense rationalizations to cover core lack of understandings of fundamental differences in sex; the whole things seem "confused."

I don't see why this would be the case. Socionics is just a tool to identify how a person's brain is hardwired, and to try to predict how a inter-relation between two types is going to play out. Perhaps sexual orientation (not physical gender) would affect how far these people involved would get in the relationship, but the inter-type relation would stay the same. The way your brain is hardwired is independent from your sexual orientation (I think), and also independent from physical gender. There seems to be higher chance that if you are physically a male, you'll get a "male brain" too, but then we have transgendered people.