Elzo's Socionics Test

[Hugo]

http://linuxcube.org/elzo_test/

Many thanks to Sabo for computerizing the test and placing it on his website.

[Birds]

ENTp: 8
ISFp: 6
INTj: 6
ESFj: 4
ESTp: 3
INFp: 7
ISTj: 5
ENFj: 5
ESFp: 6
INTp: 4
ISFj: 4
ENTj: 2
ENFp: 5
ISTp: 5
INFj: 7
ESTj: 3

Uh, okay. I've found most of the questions on Reinin Dichotomies to be pretty unclear, so I picked most of them as "I find it difficult to select one of the above options."

[BLauritson]

ENTp: 4
ISFp: 5
INTj: 8
ESFj: 5
ESTp: 6
INFp: 5
ISTj: 4
ENFj: 7
ESFp: 5
INTp: 10
ISFj: 7
ENTj: 8
ENFp: 5
ISTp: 8
INFj: 5
ESTj: 4

First time a computerised Socionics test has given me my actual type. Although.. ENFj 7??? PFFFFFFFFT. Oh well, I can understand why it got that result though, given that traits will apply to several types simultaneously.

[Hugo]

I've found most of the questions on Reinin Dichotomies to be pretty unclear

You are welcome to create short, clearer descriptions.

[Hugo]

let's work on coming up with such definitions of dichotomies that it would be easier to answer all of the questions certainly.

You are welcome to do this. The test can be amended accordingly.
Keep definitions short. :wink:

[Hugo]

loner work is futile. there needs to be a team of people dedicated to the goal.

Well, I've created a foundation. You can suggest what specific changes need to be made.

[Hugo]

you'll probably collect the stats on hard to answer ones later though.

uh, uh

[Phaedrus]

The probability of you being each type (out of 15):
ENTp: 7
ISFp: 6
INTj: 6
ESFj: 5
ESTp: 6
INFp: 5
ISTj: 5
ENFj: 4
ESFp: 5
INTp: 12
ISFj: 6
ENTj: 5
ENFp: 6
ISTp: 5
INFj: 7
ESTj: 6

[machintruc]

It resembles a sub-easyTIM thing...

[Elro]

Ok people, let's make suggestions.

...

To me, resources are 'sacred', but ideas are freely shared and manipulated.
To me, ideas are 'sacred', but resources are freely shared and manipulated.
I find it difficult to select one of the above options.

Here, "ideas" and "resources" are unclear.

I am inclined to solve problems by primarily using that information which is 'at hand'. Accordingly, my solutions are likely to be particular to that situation.
I am inclined to solve problems by primarily using that information which I possess through knowledge and experience. Accordingly, my solutions are likely to be of a general nature.
I find it difficult to select one of the above options.

This is also a bit vague, to me.

There were others I was indecisive on, but only because I could see myself in both, not because of any misunderstanding on my part, I don't think.

I came out as:

The probability of you being each type (out of 15):

* ENTp: 6
* ISFp: 6
* INTj: 8
* ESFj: 4
* ESTp: 3
* INFp: 3
* ISTj: 5
* ENFj: 5
* ESFp: 3
* INTp: 5
* ISFj: 5
* ENTj: 3
* ENFp: 4
* ISTp: 2
* INFj: 6
* ESTj: 4

[marooned]

* ENTp: 6
* ISFp: 6
* INTj: 8
* ESFj: 4
* ESTp: 6
* INFp: 10
* ISTj: 6
* ENFj: 6
* ESFp: 4
* INTp: 8
* ISFj: 6
* ENTj: 6
* ENFp: 6
* ISTp: 6
* INFj: 2
* ESTj: 6

[snegledmaca]

I didn't know what to pick on a lot of answers so my results are inconclusive.

* ENTp: 5
* ISFp: 4
* INTj: 2
* ESFj: 3
* ESTp: 2
* INFp: 3
* ISTj: 3
* ENFj: 2
* ESFp: 2
* INTp: 3
* ISFj: 1
* ENTj: 4
* ENFp: 3
* ISTp: 2
* INFj: 6
* ESTj: 3

[Ezra]

* ENTp: 7
* ISFp: 7
* INTj: 9
* ESFj: 9
* ESTp: 9
* INFp: 5
* ISTj: 3
* ENFj: 7
* ESFp: 5
* INTp: 9
* ISFj: 7
* ENTj: 11
* ENFp: 7
* ISTp: 7
* INFj: 9
* ESTj: 9

[Hugo]

I didn't know what to pick on a lot of answers so my results are inconclusive.

Why?

[snegledmaca]

I didn't know what to pick on a lot of answers so my results are inconclusive.

Why?

Because I couldn't decide which is more prevalent because I either do them both or none equally? Because I have no preference of one over the other?

[Hugo]

Does that mean Reinin dchotomies are not helpful or just that my test isn't?

[Phaedrus]

I didn't know what to pick on a lot of answers so my results are inconclusive.

Why?

Because I couldn't decide which is more prevalent because I either do them both or none equally? Because I have no preference of one over the other?

So you haven't studied the Reinin dichotomies either? Or you don't understand them? When will you learn the basics of Socionics? When will you realize that you are not an IEI?

[snegledmaca]

Does that mean Reinin dchotomies are not helpful or just that my test isn't?

Yes and no to both. Your test is not perfect, if that's what you are asking. And I don't trust reinin's dichotomies.

So you haven't studied the Reinin dichotomies either? Or you don't understand them?

I translated them. And in the process I realized that they were rubbish. I don't use them other then for "recreational" purposes, to entertain myself. But don't get me wrong, I think that theoretically there is something to them but the current state of them being just personality attributes does nothing to help determine type (Conclusively). Personality changes and so do reinin's attributes.

[Phaedrus]

So you haven't studied the Reinin dichotomies either? Or you don't understand them?

I translated them. And in the process I realized that they were rubbish.

Of course they seemed rubbish to you. Because you were already convinced that you were an IEI. So the Reinin dichotomies don't seem to fit you. But they do fit your type, because you are not an IEI but an ILI -- unless you are lying.

[snegledmaca]

So you haven't studied the Reinin dichotomies either? Or you don't understand them?

I translated them. And in the process I realized that they were rubbish.

Of course they seemed rubbish to you. Because you were already convinced that you were an IEI. So the Reinin dichotomies don't seem to fit you. But they do fit your type, because you are not an IEI but an ILI -- unless you are lying.

No, I mean I studied them and realized that anybody can have almost any attribute. And that a preference is as stable as those in MBTI. In didn't even bother to try to determine my type through them. And if you are so hung up on them they almost always give me ILE as a result. Now how does that fit in your view of the world?

[Ezra]

I find it amusing how I got LIE. That's another thing to add to my ammunition.

- Temperament
- Club
- Dichotomies (both Reinin and regular)
- Behaviour
- Test results

[snegledmaca]

Does that mean Reinin dchotomies are not helpful or just that my test isn't?

Ok, so perhaps some questions were ambiguous.

I perceive events in an episodic manner — discrete states rather than continuous changes.
I perceive events in a continuous sequences — continuous changes rather than discrete states.

What would be a real life example of this? I hardly go thinking, aha, so I'm perceiving a discrete state of change as oppose to a continuous flow of a situation. It's a bit too theoretical.

I tend to minimize the emotional elements of interaction, preferring to focus on the 'business' elements.
I tend to concentrate foremost on the emotional background of interaction, with 'business' a secondary concern.

The first option directly contradict intimacy. I will give flawed results.

I am good at noticing the emotional background and perceiving the emotional aspect (particularly 'fun') separate from the activity.
I am bad at noticing the emotional background and do not separate the emotional aspect (particularly 'fun') from the activity.

Again, I didn't understand this one. What do you mean by noticing the emotional background and perceiving the emotional aspect in relation to an activity? And referring to fun just confused me. I feel like an example would set things straight.

[Phaedrus]

I find it amusing how I got LIE. That's another thing to add to my ammunition.

- Temperament
- Club
- Dichotomies (both Reinin and regular)
- Behaviour
- Test results

If all of that suggests LIE, then you cannot be any other type than LIE. The only option left if you insist on being some other type than LIE, for example SLE, is to assume that you are so seriously confused that you don't have a clue how well you fit or don't fit those dimensions.

Can you really be that confused? Of course it is possible -- but is it really likely? People on this forum don't seem to have any trouble with that, because they are more interested in sticking to their prejudices and their subjective interpretations of things than in finding objective truth. But if we want to have a scientific attitude and approach we should prefer the most simple explanation until proven wrong. And the most simple, and the most likely, explanation is that you are an LIE.

[Gilly]

I'm sorry, but the Reinin Dichotomies just cannot possibly be tested for in such a straightforward manner.

[Hugo]

Does that mean Reinin dchotomies are not helpful or just that my test isn't?

Ok, so perhaps some questions were ambiguous.

I perceive events in an episodic manner — discrete states rather than continuous changes.
I perceive events in a continuous sequences — continuous changes rather than discrete states.

What would be a real life example of this? I hardly go thinking, aha, so I'm perceiving a discrete state of change as oppose to a continuous flow of a situation. It's a bit too theoretical.

I tend to minimize the emotional elements of interaction, preferring to focus on the 'business' elements.
I tend to concentrate foremost on the emotional background of interaction, with 'business' a secondary concern.

The first option directly contradict intimacy. I will give flawed results.

I am good at noticing the emotional background and perceiving the emotional aspect (particularly 'fun') separate from the activity.
I am bad at noticing the emotional background and do not separate the emotional aspect (particularly 'fun') from the activity.

Again, I didn't understand this one. What do you mean by noticing the emotional background and perceiving the emotional aspect in relation to an activity? And referring to fun just confused me. I feel like an example would set things straight.

Could you word them better please?

[Phaedrus]

No, I mean I studied them and realized that anybody can have almost any attribute. And that a preference is as stable as those in MBTI. In didn't even bother to try to determine my type through them. And if you are so hung up on them they almost always give me ILE as a result. Now how does that fit in your view of the world?

ILE is a more likely type for you than IEI, because there is no way that you can be an IEI unless you have got it all wrong. But it can sometimes happen that an ILE can identify with ILI and INTP type descriptions, and the ILE belongs to the group of NTs, so that can also be explained given that assumption.

[eunice]

The probability of you being each type (out of 15):
ENTp: 7
ISFp: 9
INTj: 11
ESFj: 5
ESTp: 7
INFp: 9
ISTj: 7
ENFj: 9
ESFp: 9
INTp: 7
ISFj: 5
ENTj: 3
ENFp: 9
ISTp: 7
INFj: 9
ESTj: 7

[Ezra]

I think the test is decent. You've utilised some important issues that are central to socionics in order to determine potential types. Perhaps an expansion of this test would prove very popular.

I don't really agree with the fact that the only method with which we will ever be able to determine a socionics type is through VI and interview. I think that if people get a test right, which covers all functional and dichotomical grounds, socionics will really take off.

[Gilly]

I think the test is decent. You've utilised some important issues that are central to socionics in order to determine potential types. Perhaps an expansion of this test would prove very popular.

I don't really agree with the fact that the only method with which we will ever be able to determine a socionics type is through VI and interview. I think that if people get a test right, which covers all functional and dichotomical grounds, socionics will really take off.

Fuck you for trying to speak with authority when you know nothing.

[Ezra]

If all of that suggests LIE, then you cannot be any other type than LIE. The only option left if you insist on being some other type than LIE, for example SLE, is to assume that you are so seriously confused that you don't have a clue how well you fit or don't fit those dimensions.

Can you really be that confused? Of course it is possible -- but is it really likely? People on this forum don't seem to have any trouble with that, because they are more interested in sticking to their prejudices and their subjective interpretations of things than in finding objective truth. But if we want to have a scientific attitude and approach we should prefer the most simple explanation until proven wrong. And the most simple, and the most likely, explanation is that you are an LIE.

I am confused. Very. Let me tell you why.

Basically, I see functions in myself, but I can't tell if they're really me or not. I know which ones I don't use, but not which ones I do. Perhaps I don't understand them enough yet.

When I have experienced socionists telling me two different things, this does not help at all.

[Ezra]

I think the test is decent. You've utilised some important issues that are central to socionics in order to determine potential types. Perhaps an expansion of this test would prove very popular.

I don't really agree with the fact that the only method with which we will ever be able to determine a socionics type is through VI and interview. I think that if people get a test right, which covers all functional and dichotomical grounds, socionics will really take off.

Fuck you for trying to speak with authority when you know nothing.

That's pretty much the most uninformed statement I've ever heard.

Credit to you for speaking out though.

[Sabo]

My results:

* ENTp: 9
* ISFp: 7
* INTj: 8
* ESFj: 4
* ESTp: 5
* INFp: 5
* ISTj: 4
* ENFj: 6
* ESFp: 7
* INTp: 5
* ISFj: 4
* ENTj: 4
* ENFp: 7
* ISTp: 3
* INFj: 4
* ESTj: 6

The only problem is that a lot of the numbers are so close together that the results aren't very conclusive. It would help to have more than one question for each dichotomy. However, I'm glad that someone made a test like this... it's nice to see people experimenting with different kinds of tests, and I haven't seen many tests based on Reinin dichotomies before.

Some of the questions were hard for me to answer, though. It would be useful to tie the abstract descriptions to practical examples -- this holds true for almost every socionics test I've ever taken, though. I'm curious how accurate this test would be for people without socionics knowledge.

[Elro]

lot's of people here are so confused they don't know *what* they are talking about. don't take everything at face value, try to remember that behind the mask of confident words can lie a rotting bullshit and use you OWN HEAD!!!

Excellent advice!

EVERYONE, PUT THIS PRICK ON IGNORE!!!

Hmm... I don't think so.

[Not A Communist Shill]

I think this test is good, even though I'm not sure of the results - it might be a good idea to double the number of questions or something (says the lazy one)?

I got:

* ENTp: 10
* ISFp: 6
* INTj: 7
* ESFj: 5
* ESTp: 4
* INFp: 6
* ISTj: 7
* ENFj: 3
* ESFp: 5
* INTp: 5
* ISFj: 6
* ENTj: 4
* ENFp: 3
* ISTp: 5
* INFj: 6
* ESTj: 6

[Birds]

You are welcome to create short, clearer descriptions.

I'm not creating the test...

[snegledmaca]

something

Could you word them better please?

Pfft, I don't know, perhaps this?

I perceive events in an episodic manner — discrete states rather than continuous changes.
EXAMPLE: Things happen. They either are or are not.
I perceive events in a continuous sequences — continuous changes rather than discrete states.
EXAMPLE: Things don't just happen. They come into being.

I tend to minimize the emotional elements of interaction with people I meet, preferring to focus on the 'business' elements.
I tend to concentrate foremost on the emotional background of interaction with people I meet, with 'business' a secondary concern.

I am good at noticing the emotional background and perceiving the emotional aspect (particularly 'fun') separate from the activity.
EXAMPLE: I hate it when a person creates awkward silences by saying the wrong thing because they cannot perceive the spirit of playfulness.
I am bad at noticing the emotional background and do not separate the emotional aspect (particularly 'fun') from the activity.
EXAMPLE: Some people make a joke out of everything.

No, I mean I studied them and realized that anybody can have almost any attribute. And that a preference is as stable as those in MBTI. In didn't even bother to try to determine my type through them. And if you are so hung up on them they almost always give me ILE as a result. Now how does that fit in your view of the world?

ILE is a more likely type for you than IEI, because there is no way that you can be an IEI unless you have got it all wrong. But it can sometimes happen that an ILE can identify with ILI and INTP type descriptions, and the ILE belongs to the group of NTs, so that can also be explained given that assumption.

Lol, my mother is an ESE. There is no chance in hell, I repeat, no chance in hell, that I'm an alpha.

[Not A Communist Shill]

I perceive events in an episodic manner — discrete states rather than continuous changes.

This might be like a series of photographs telling a story (I'm not sure if the 'photographs' necessarily need to be in sequence?)

I perceive events in a continuous sequences — continuous changes rather than discrete states.

This might be more like a film telling a story .

[Phaedrus]

Lol, my mother is an ESE. There is no chance in hell, I repeat, no chance in hell, that I'm an alpha.

I didn't suggest that you would be an Alpha. My point has always been that you can't be a Beta. No Beta is a Rational, no Beta is an NT Researcher. And you still claim to be one. That is a blatant contradiction. Another contradiction is that you claim not to fit the IEI type descriptions. Your mother could very well be an ESE, and the few times I have seen you describe your relation to your mother everything you have said about that relation seems to be consistent with a relation of Conflict. Your case for IEI is just too weak. You don't have legitimate grounds for claiming that you are an IEI -- at least none of those you have presented to this forum.

[snegledmaca]

I didn't suggest that you would be an Alpha. My point has always been that you can't be a Beta. No Beta is a Rational, no Beta is an NT Researcher.

I never claimed to be any of those things.

Your case for IEI is just too weak. You don't have legitimate grounds for claiming that you are an IEI -- at least none of those you have presented to this forum.

Well, hmm, it's stronger then ILI.

[Jimbean]

The probability of you being each type (out of 15):

* ENTp: 5
* ISFp: 3
* INTj: 4
* ESFj: 4
* ESTp: 8
* INFp: 4
* ISTj: 7
* ENFj: 5
* ESFp: 3
* INTp: 3
* ISFj: 4
* ENTj: 6
* ENFp: 4
* ISTp: 2
* INFj: 5
* ESTj: 5