New and Awesome Socionics Test

[erg]

When are you going to move past Socionics?

Why should I when it works and it is the most advanced body of knowledge in its area?

Let me put it this way, Socionics is how you process information, correct? If such is the case, then if you divided up how all people process and conclude "is male/female concrete and objective," into yes/no, then half of the societypes would select Yes, and half would select No. This is one of the dichotomies. You would not have one individual of one type fundamentally agree with Yes and another individual of the same type fundamentally agree with No, because such would invalidate the entire system which is based upon them processing this information in the same manner.

Sure, you can divide all people into those two dichotomies, but will it be type related? You think will will not find a LII that says one, and then another LII that says the other?

Take this. It will knock out all but 2 types based on Reinin dichotomies. Make sure you agree with your results. HelloQuizzy.com: The Sublime Philosophical Crap Test

I got: "You are an N-A-O: a metaphysical Non-Reductionist, an epistemological Absolutist, and a moral Objectivist". I generally agree with the result. How do the results of this test tie in with socionics? This was an amusing test to take, but a bit too "philosophical" for my tastes.

I agree, especially where personality is concerned. There is a rough dichotomy in some aspects of biology, but even there, there are far more similarities than differences. I have found that personality is a much stronger influence on how someone thinks, reacts, decides, and views the world. Of course it is all skewed by the considerable effects of social conditioning, but even there, type comes into play, sometimes to mitigate, sometime to reinforce it. All in all, male and female are about as useful in personality analysis as handedness is.

The thing is, I think that this is exclusivelly to humans, due to their rationality. Animals' physical gender always matches their brain gender (even though some animals engage in homosexual behaviors).

 

[Merced]

Dunno, but your avatar "is" EIE.

What do you mean?

 

[that's not my name]

? That was a reply to Coriolis, because I told her to take a different test that is based upon Reinin Dichotomies. The test you originally posted seems to be based upon hogwash and someone's desire to seem smart lol.

I was assuming it was based on cognitive functions but when you said that to Coriolis it was supposed to have been based on dichotomies (however badly done) it made a lot more sense with the results compared to if it were based on cognitive functions, even if it still wasn't accurate.

 

[Jeremy8419]

Sure, you can divide all people into those two dichotomies, but will it be type related? You think will will not find a LII that says one, and then another LII that says the other?

They wouldn't. You would simply have two people who you consider the same type but are not. Although it is "male/female" in question, the dichotomies which decide how one approaches such things give the same results for everything similar.

I got: "You are an N-A-O: a metaphysical Non-Reductionist, an epistemological Absolutist, and a moral Objectivist". I generally agree with the result. How do the results of this test tie in with socionics? This was an amusing test to take, but a bit too "philosophical" for my tastes.

They're equivalent to three different Reinin Dichotomies. I already knew your answers to the first two based upon your attitudes presented, but I believe you're off on the last one, mistaking logic in the Ego for Objectivism.

 

[erg]

They wouldn't. You would simply have two people who you consider the same type but are not. Although it is "male/female" in question, the dichotomies which decide how one approaches such things give the same results for everything similar.

I tend to disagree. Do the test and ask several confirmed LII's, and I bet some will pick that male/female is objetive and others will pick it is subjetive. In any case, which dichotomy do you think is involved here? Objetivist-subjetivist (Serious or Merry)?

They're equivalent to three different Reinin Dichotomies. I already knew your answers to the first two based upon your attitudes presented, but I believe you're off on the last one, mistaking logic in the Ego for Objectivism.

I think moral objetivism is Fi-valuing. What do you think the other two correlate with?

 

[Jeremy8419]

What do you mean?

This is verbatim the description of EIE Super-Id from one of the 3 main schools:
"Unconsciously gets inspired by an idea or possibility to show his best when defendig some cause. He is flattered by being presented as a champion, standard-bearer or defender of a just cause, protector of dear persons or values."

 

[Jeremy8419]

I tend to disagree. Do the test and ask several confirmed LII's, and I bet some will pick that male/female is objetive and others will pick it is subjetive. In any case, which dichotomy do you think is involved here? Objetivist-subjetivist (Serious or Merry)?

Confirmed by subjectivity of the person, not by objectivity.

I think moral objetivism is Fi-valuing. What do you think the other two correlate with?

That's is correct; however, you don't display those things. You're clearly Democratic from Democratic/Aristocratic dichotomy, which isn't part of the test. Your 3 answers plus being Democratic, places you as SEE; however, as I stated before, you seem to be off on what you're considering Moral Objectivism with something else, and only one type is objectively prone (really, all cases I've encountered) to doing such.

 

[Jeremy8419]

I was assuming it was based on cognitive functions but when you said that to Coriolis it was supposed to have been based on dichotomies (however badly done) it made a lot more sense with the results compared to if it were based on cognitive functions, even if it still wasn't accurate.

Problem with going by Functions, or really anything that is known, is that the observer may want to be a Function, and subjectively bend what is know into something which suits their desires. Without clear classifications of one Function compared to the other, and utilizing abstract definitions rather than objectively verifiable ones, the individual can, and does, alter the definitions to better suit their own case.

 

[erg]

Confirmed by subjectivity of the person, not by objectivity.

Things are what they are. A person will be LII, if he or she is wired like a LII. Now the problem is how to asses this; if we had some sort of machine that could tell us, it will be perfect, but for now a combination of tests + VI + intertype relation verification is the best that we have.

That's is correct; however, you don't display those things. You're clearly Democratic from Democratic/Aristocratic dichotomy, which isn't part of the test. Your 3 answers plus being Democratic, places you as SEE; however, as I stated before, you seem to be off on what you're considering Moral Objectivism with something else, and only one type is objectively prone (really, all cases I've encountered) to doing such.

Oh boy I could see this one coming. And you have reached this conclusion from what, my 30 posts? I guess it's fair that I give you my assesment of your type as well: your penchant for dichotomous logic (-Ti base), ignorance of facts (Te ignoring) and obliviousness to external reality (Se PoRL) makes it much more likely that you are LII, than you are EII.

But hey, I don't mind being SEE since they are frigging awesome .

Let's see if you answer this one: what type is objetively prone to being off in what they consider moral objetivism with something else?

 

[Jeremy8419]

Things are what they are. A person will be LII, if he or she is wired like a LII. Now the problem is how to asses this; if we had some sort of machine that could tell us, it will be perfect, but for now a combination of tests + VI + intertype relation verification is the best that we have.

We do have a means to verify... it's called objectivity...

Oh boy I could see this one coming. And you have reached this conclusion from what, my 30 posts? I guess it's fair that I give you my assesment of your type as well: your penchant for dichotomous logic (-Ti base), ignorance of facts (Te ignoring) and obliviousness to external reality (Se PoRL) makes it much more likely that you are LII, than you are EII.

But hey, I don't mind being SEE since they are frigging awesome .

Let's see if you answer this one: what type is objetively prone to being off in what they consider moral objetivism with something else?

You're ignorant of the subject matter at hand, and you only chose Moral Objectivism due to it sharing a name with a dichotomy you are familiar with for the type which you subjectively consider yourself. If the test chose to skip all mention of "subjectivism" and "objectivism," then you would not have chosen moral Objectivism, and had you done so, it would have been due to the mention of what sounds to be "logical."

Your assessment of my type shows that you clearly have very little knowledge of socionics.

Doesn't matter, your answers already verified your actual type. Test is invalidated now that it has lost it's blind aspect. You're not ILI, which your knowledge of Socionics placed you as, and so you do not understand Socionics well enough to even engage in debate on such. Trying to pick your type and then rationalize why you are that type is the opposite of Objectivism.

 

[erg]

<drivel>.

I had a slight hope that this exchange would be somewhat fruitful. Unfortunately, I tend to be optimistic. It is people like you what is causing damage to socionics.

 

[Jeremy8419]

I had a slight hope that this exchange would be somewhat fruitful. Unfortunately, I tend to be optimistic.

Fruitful to what ends? All you're doing is rationalizing your rejection of objective reality by aligning yourself with others who do the same and then treating such as "objective reality," while dismissing the entirety of the excluded remainder of society, which is far greater in percentage of the whole, and which is responsible for determining what the word "objectivity" even means, so you return to your sub-sect of society and rationalize with others in that group that your definition of "objectivity" is the correct one, which is actually in direct opposition of actual objectivity. You can argue none of my points with anything that qualifies as objective, and when confronted to do so, you resort to retreat into the sub-sect of society which similarly uses your definition of "objectivity" as it's core flawed defense, and reject the notion of falsifiability by adherence to individual subjectivity being the measure of accuracy of your "objective" "facts" while ignoring the greater combined subjectivity of the excluded remainder of society. Your sole defense relies on your adherence to living in defensive bubble reality separate from society. "I'm weird, but right, and general society is wrong," is an illogical argument, because general society is what determines not only the classifications of what is "right," but, simultaneously, determines the definitions which compose even the words which define "right" itself. It's nothing more than disintegration of society and logic out of self-defense, and refusing to return to what is considered reasonable and accepted by General society is, in itself, what loses you every argument and counter you could possibly make.

 

[Frosty]

IEI it said.



Ah that pictures of fairly piss poor quality.

 

[Norrsken]

IEI

 

[Obfuscate]

the test had matched my guess... (ili)

it turned out pretty terrible (the picture)... i may fix it later...

 

[Coriolis]

Their results directly correspond with Reinin Dichotomies. Because you're not already educated on them, nor the correspondence to the test, it will be a blind test to determine your sociotype.

You are making some assumptions here.

It's a thread on testing societypes. Knowing your sociotype gives a way to check the original test's accuracy. If you don't want your type known, that's fine.

I responded at the point of the discussion where we were commenting on the utility or legitimacy of male/female as an independent component of personality. Unless you were wanting to use my specific case to illustrate something, my type is irrelevant. I have done tests for it before, in any case.

The thing is, I think that this is exclusivelly to humans, due to their rationality. Animals' physical gender always matches their brain gender (even though some animals engage in homosexual behaviors).

I think the linkage between physical gender and what you are calling "brain gender", which presumably means how they behave and react, just seems stronger because reproductive activities are a much larger part of their lives. We also don't have as good a sense of what would constitute animal "personality", though people who live with pets might disagree. It is easy, therefore, to overlook the significant commonality between males and females even of other animal species.

 

[Jeremy8419]

You are making some assumptions here.

It's not an assumption when you speak with context on the subject matter that is incorrect.

I responded at the point of the discussion where we were commenting on the utility or legitimacy of male/female as an independent component of personality. Unless you were wanting to use my specific case to illustrate something, my type is irrelevant. I have done tests for it before, in any case.

Your type compared to your self-selected type is entirely relevant, as it underlines you having the correct judgment to discuss Socionics acurrately. Your type shows how you will address the legitimacy or illigitimacy of male/female as an independent component of personality, so, again, it is relevant. Your points are moot, though. I already know that you won't take a test which doesn't allow you to choose your personality type and then rationalize how such is the case, despite independently verifiable evidence of the contrary, while simultaneously trying to pass such off as factual. How you respond to the request to take a blind test, such as this one, is also evident by your sociotype.

 

[that's not my name]

Problem with going by Functions, or really anything that is known, is that the observer may want to be a Function, and subjectively bend what is know into something which suits their desires. Without clear classifications of one Function compared to the other, and utilizing abstract definitions rather than objectively verifiable ones, the individual can, and does, alter the definitions to better suit their own case.

Yeah, I agree with that, that's why I think its better to type people on random posts of theirs than by any test or set of questions.

 

[Coriolis]

It's not an assumption when you speak with context on the subject matter that is incorrect.


Your type compared to your self-selected type is entirely relevant, as it underlines you having the correct judgment to discuss Socionics acurrately. Your type shows how you will address the legitimacy or illigitimacy of male/female as an independent component of personality, so, again, it is relevant. Your points are moot, though. I already know that you won't take a test which doesn't allow you to choose your personality type and then rationalize how such is the case, despite independently verifiable evidence of the contrary, while simultaneously trying to pass such off as factual. How you respond to the request to take a blind test, such as this one, is also evident by your sociotype.

Exactly what "context on the subject matter" is incorrect? And just how do you see my response to taking your suggested test? More assumptions.

Your reasoning is here is circular. You have set up a set of false equivalences under which you and only you can be correct. You and only you can know what everyone else here knows and thinks - better than they do themselves. If anyone disagrees with you, you question their type and/or call them ignorant. It is noteworthy that I have never seen you admit to being wrong.

Moreover I was discussing gender, which applies both within and without the context of socionics, or any personality typing system for that matter. As someone already observed, we are what we are. All these systems don't change anything, they are simply our attempts to try to make sense of it in a way that is helpful.

 

[Jeremy8419]

Yeah, I agree with that, that's why I think its better to type people on random posts of theirs than by any test or set of questions.

I always blind test myself on such things, before educating myself on them. Typically, when I've gone through systems such as these, or even MBTI compared to Socionics, I will mentally type someone, write down what I type them, do the same for what I think they will type themselves, then do the same for myself from their perspective. By doing such, I can have a central baseline for that specific individual compared to myself, from which I can apply into my framework of understanding. It also gives me the opportunity to correct any errors I have in such, so that the integrity of my system of understanding continually increases.

Yourself, for instance, I thought of a few types that seemed plausible from your speaking on here, mentally ranked them, went back to my resources to check a few things, turned out my originally ranking was off, readjusted it, then asked you to take the test. Wrong or right, it's still information on my own judgment that I can use to better said judgment.