Is an accurate socionics test impossible?

[tcaudilllg]

IM elements are so abstract that I'm not sure people can reliably determine them for themselves. Not individually. However I think by contrasting lists of definite processes together we may be able to make a better socionics test.

But, observation of the political dimension for such a test is essential, because the functions themselves are composited of political opposites. (change vs continuity) Such a test would also need to be stood by by persons of strong will, because radicals would be determined to declare the existence of the functional orientations they despise null and void.

[Darkstar]

The biggest problem with questions and answers is that you dont understand the question.

We should focus on questions that can never be misinterperated. EVER


You should learn to write more understandable posts to begin with. You should not be the leader of this test

[tcaudilllg]

The biggest problem with questions and answers is that you dont understand the question.

We should focus on questions that can never be misinterperated. EVER

There are no such things.

You should learn to write more understandable posts to begin with. You should not be the leader of this test

I don't care. I intend to make one anyway. My posts are perfectly understandable: it is you who have not educated yourself on the theory, and it's not like I've not offered you reams and reams of material.

[tcaudilllg]

As I see it, one must offer "not sure" answers to given questions. This will prevent limitations in the person's own capacity to reckon the material, from causing them to answer erroneously.

[Slacker]

I'll admit to being skeptical about some of your ideas, but I say go for it! Make the test! Tests done in more traditional ways don't seem to work, so we might as well see if your ideas do any better.

[tcaudilllg]

I'm not ready to make it yet. I was offering an outline as to how it might be done.

I will have to succeed in fully understanding how the IM elements manifest before stringing them together into the full IM element process range (which would be 128 options) which could plausibly be narrowed down to 64, one for each psychic domain. Right now we're not even in agreement on those.

Think of it this way: Ti is both principle (how conservative thinking considers it) and structure. But it is law also, and... something else.

What do conservatives think -Ti is? Progressive LIIs experience it as principle... but what do conservatives see it as?

[Joy]

Is an accurate socionics test impossible?

Consistently accurate? Yes.

[Elro]

Consistently accurate? Yes.

Why?

[tcaudilllg]

I think we actually do have good tests, some of them. We can certainly make a good test.

But let me show you the problem we face first hand. The following passage, in my mind, fully encompasses the passage of Ne to Ti:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle

A principle is an abstract object which signifies a point (or points) of probability on a subject (e.g., the principle of creativity), which allows for the formation of rule or norm or law by (human) interpretation of the phenomena (events) that can be created. The rules, norms and laws depend on and co-create a particular context to formulate.A principle is the underlying part (or spirit) of the basis for an evolutionary normative or formative development, which is the object of subjective experience and/or interpretation. For example, the ethics of someone may be seen as a set of principles that the individual obeys in the form of rules, as guidance or law. These principles thus form the basis for such ethics.

Reducing a rule to its principle says that, for the purpose at hand, the principle will not / cannot be questioned or further derived (unless you create new rules). This is a convenient way of reducing the complexity of an argumentation.

The point of principle allows to create all probable versions under its subjective theme, as its reality creation/evolvement under that subject is open-ended and unpredictable relying on choice and option. Rules and laws capture a consensus that certain actions and events will occur under a principle (or a combination of principles).

A principled view for example, implies that an individual has a firm understanding of the underlying principle(s) of events and the rules and laws which govern them inherently and according to our consensus.

But not all LIIs see it in that particular way; LSIs certainly don't.

[Slacker]

There can't be a blood test or anything, and that would seem to be the only way to have a 100% accurate test. But people haven't tried every possible way of making a test, so it could be possible to have a reasonably accurate test. Who knows?

[tcaudilllg]

I say that if the probability of an event occuring in a controlled situation is 100%, then the meaning of that probability is the existence of a principle underlying the situation itself. The possibility of the event occuring is +Ne; the controlled situation is -Ne; the probability itself is the degree to which the controlled situation, when the possibility is tested, fulfills the possibility; and the principle which is indicated by the regularity of the fulfillment is -Ti. Why is the probability itself always 100%? Because the control situation is an internal object static which is conserved between situations. (something only ENTps can identify in the context of relation to Ti).

[Joy]

Why?

Because many people's self-perception is off.