-
-
Last edited by Dee; 02-26-2009 at 02:14 AM.
Re: all you socionics clever people ...
no such thingOriginally Posted by dee
Type finding is a matter of introspection and extrospection. Tests are only tools to that end.
augusta was never a big fan of tests, favoring personal interviews instead and i seem to agree. i do think though it would help make the theory more credible and valid if there was a reliable test for determining people's types. i think it would be cool if the test could measure your IM element preferences and then the order of the functions in model a somehow. idk im not a good test-maker but that would be cool.
ESFp-Fi sub
6w7 sx/so/sp
Re: all you socionics clever people ...
Okay.create a test for fuck's sake already! what's the use in your theories if you cannot even make a reliable test. let's make the test quality a mark of the level of advancedness! (i failed, sorryi'll keep trying though)
1. Are you an LII?
A. Yes.
B. No, then look at one of the other 15 types.
2. Are you an ILE?
A. Yes.
B. No, then look at one of the other 14 types.
3. Are you an ESE?
A. Yes.
B. No, then look at one of the other 13 types.
4. Are you an SEI?
A. Yes.
B. No, then look at one of the other 12 types.
5. Are you an LSI?
A. Yes.
B. NO, then look at one of the other 11 types.
6. Are you an SLE?
A. Yes.
B. No, then look at one of the other 10 types.
7. Are you an EIE?
A. Yes.
B. No, then look at one of the other 9 types.
8. Are you an IEI?
A. Yes.
B. No, then look at one of the other 8 types.
9. Are you an LIE?
A. Yes.
B. No, then look at one of the other 7 types.
10. Are you an ILI?
A. Yes.
B. No, then look at one of the other 6 types.
11. Are you an ESI?
A. Yes.
B. No, then look at one of the other 5 types.
12. Are you an SEE?
A. Yes.
B. No, then look at one of the other 4 types.
13. Are you an LSE?
A. Yes.
B. No, then look at one of the other 3 types.
14. Are you an SLI?
A. Yes.
B. No, then look at one of the other 2 types.
15. Are you an EII?
A. Yes.
B. No, then look at one of the other 1 types.
16. Are you an IEE?
A. Yes.
B. No? Then you're just a dumb ass and I don't know what's your problem.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Dee, you are supposed to learn these things yourself. You have to absorb the material - reading other people's definitions is irrelevant unless you associate it with real experience.well then get those easy to pick definitions going
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
Then you keep trying something else until it works. The definitions you find here online, but the are just words. Words can point to the truth, but are not the truth. You have to look at reality to find out what the real system of things is.
It is like you are expecting other people to do the work for you.
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
It's not about how much work you do it's about how effective it is. You can call me names if you want to but it won't make you understand anything any better, and it certainly isn't going to "make me feel bad".
Whatever you are doing, just try something else - a new way of thinking. Look at what you have done in the past, and realize it did not work, so try another strategy for learning - and just keep at it.
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
create a test for fuck's sake already!HA incarnate.
Anyway, I think we are all still a long way from being able to make reliable tests. It probably takes a person of a unique kind of mindset to do it. I myself see type characteristics way to abstractly to be able to describe what it is that makes me think a person is a certain type.
Real life, experimental conditions are a must for getting this done the proper way.
About your type: I have had a lot of converging intuitions pointing to the ENFp possibility. I am not inclined to see you as the identical of people like Joy, Expat and the like. Still convinced that you are Irrational and too confident/self-possesed to be Ip. (admittedly hyper-subjective like everything an INTj does and says...)
And the interesting thing is, Rick obviously wasn't expecting at all that some people would find it "sickening" (you) or "a torture" (Kioshi), just like I wasn't expecting at all that other people would not even begin to know how to answer my own tests.
Of course, that kind of response (or non-response) is already very significative.
Anyway, Logo's test was to the point.
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
I think a test like the cognitiveprocesses one, which displays a score for each function, might be helpful if the questions were designed with socionics definitions in mind
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
