Holland career types

[The Exception]

It's really more of an interest assessment and not so much a personality test but I would think that certain types have greater likelihood to have certain career interests and therefore greater likelihood to have a different Holland type.

Here's some information on the 6 basic Holland types. I wasn't able to find a good test online for free but you can probably work out your probable Holland type from this.

In case you're wondering I'm primarily Investigative, and secondary social. I'm very low on realistic and enterprising.


What correlations to do you see between socionic types and Holland types? Discuss.


The Holland's Codes Career Model - Career Development from MindTools.com

Using "Holland's Codes"


Shaping a career that suits your personality.

You know when you are in a job you like. You also know when the task you're doing just isn't right for you.
What lies behind our feelings of work satisfaction or dissatisfaction are our fundamental work interests: These are the things that we enjoy doing, whatever the industry or the job title. The trick to finding career satisfaction can be to identify those core interests and match your job to them.
For example, if you’re a science person, you may not be happy working in a job that needs quick decisions, or where you need to use your “gut” to guide you. Likewise, artistic people would be driven mad in a profession that has lots of rules and procedures, or which demands a lot of number crunching.
In a perfect world, we would all choose careers that suit our core interests. However this is not a perfect world: For all sorts of reasons, we can find ourselves in positions where what we’re doing just doesn’t suit our natural interests and abilities. This is where understanding how job and personality fit together can help you change the situation for the better.
Ability and personality are the two main things contribute towards job satisfaction. You’re likely to find that jobs that suit your ability and personality are much more rewarding than those that don’t. Here we look at your work interests – an important part of your work personality.
Understanding the Theory: Holland’s Codes

In the 1970s John Holland developed a popular theory of interest development based around these six personality types:

1. Realistic (R):
These are people who like well-ordered activities, or enjoy working with objects, tools, and machines.

Realistic people:

• <LI class=bodytext>See themselves as mechanically or athletically talented, but may not be good with people. <LI class=bodytext>Value concrete and tangible things like - money, power, and status.
• Avoid "social" activities, those that need interaction with other people.

Common traits:

• Hard-headed, inflexible, persistent, materialistic, practical, and genuine.

2. Investigative (I):
Investigative people like activities that involve creative investigation of the world or nature.
Investigative people:

• <LI class=bodytext>See themselves as highly intelligent, but often lack leadership skills. <LI class=bodytext>Value scientific endeavors.
• Avoid activities that seem mundane, commercial or "enterprising".

Common traits:

• Analytical, curious, pessimistic, intellectual, precise, and reserved.

3. Artistic (A):
Artistic people like unstructured activities, and enjoy using materials to create art.

Artistic people:

• <LI class=bodytext>See themselves as talented artists. <LI class=bodytext>Value aesthetics.
• Avoid "conventional" occupations or situations.

Common traits:

• Idealistic, complicated , introspective, sensitive, impractical and nonconformist.

4. Social (S):
Social people enjoy informing, training, developing, curing and enlightening others.

Social people:

• <LI class=bodytext>Perceive themselves as helpful, understanding and able to teach others. <LI class=bodytext>Value social activities.
• Avoid activities demanded by "realistic" occupations and situations.

Common traits:

• Generous, patient, emphatic, tactful, persuasive, and cooperative.

5. Enterprising (E):
These people enjoy reaching organizational goals or achieving economic gain.

Enterprising people:

• <LI class=bodytext>See themselves as aggressive, popular, great leaders and speakers, but may lack scientific ability. <LI class=bodytext>Value political and economic achievement.
• Avoid activities demanded by "investigative" occupations and situations.

Common traits:

• Extroverted, adventurous, optimistic, ambitious, sociable, and exhibitionistic.

6. Conventional (C):

Conventional people enjoy manipulating data, record keeping, filing, reproducing materials, and organizing written or numerical data.

Conventional people

• <LI class=bodytext>See themselves as having clerical and numerical ability. <LI class=bodytext>Value business and economic achievement.
• Avoid unstructured or "artistic" activities.

Common traits:

• Efficient, practical, conscientious, inflexible, defensive, and methodical.

The Model

Holland then arranged these six personality types into a hexagon (see figure 1, below) organized according to people's preference for working with different stimuli at work: people, data, things, and ideas. Holland's theory is that people with different personality types prefer working with different work stimuli, and that the distance between work personalities indicates the degree of difference in interests between them. For example Artistic people are least like Conventional people and most like Social and Investigative people.

Holland's conclusion was that for any personality type, the career most aligned with that type is most likely to be enjoyable and satisfying. For example, a Realistic person would be best suited for a Technical job and least suited for Social job. Jobs with Conventional or Operational characteristics would be the next best choices.

The way that this works in practice is that people use a personality test to identify their three top personality types. This gives their Holland's code (for example, ESA). This is then matched against the Holland's codes of people typically found within particular careers.
How to Use Holland Codes Career Model:

There are two good ways of using this model – either in helping you choose a career that suits you, or in helping you shape your existing job so that you maximize your fulfillment. To find your ideal career according to this approach, just complete steps i and ii below. To shape your job, use our complete process.

Using Holland's Codes is a straightforward process, which is made all the easier by some useful online interest evaluation sites.
Part One: Identify your Work Personality

Step i: Read through the brief descriptions given above and find the one you most identify with. You may want to take an official Holland Code Assessment. There are many of these, costing different amounts – you can find them by typing "Holland Code Assessment" into Google.

Try one: Does the assessment say what you thought it would? If they aren't, ask yourself why: Often we choose a personality type that reflects who we want to be, not who we really are. (If so, learn from this!)
Tip 1:
Do try the online tests – they're not expensive (for example, one costs US$9.99) and a good one will show you the careers and professions that most suit your code once you've completed it. This can save you a huge amount of painstaking research!

Step ii: To further explore your "true" work personality, ask yourself, "How would my spouse, family, and friends categorize me?" Show some of your friends and co-workers descriptions of the types and ask them to categorize you. Here again, explore any differences between your assessment of yourself and theirs.
Part Two: Analyze your job in terms of your interests

Step iii: Look at your main tasks and responsibilities. Are they aligned with your work personality?

Step iv: List those responsibilities that are aligned in one column and those that are not in another. Use this to decide whether your job is a good fit for your interests or not.

Step v: For each of the job roles where your interests are not well matched, work out at least one way of bringing the two sides together. For instance, if you are a "Conventional" person working in an administrative position, many of your roles will be in-line with your interests. However, if you were asked to organize the Christmas party, you might be very uncomfortable about deciding about decorations, entertainment, and so on. These are more Artistic responsibilities, which are directly opposite to your Conventional ways. One strategy to deal with this is to delegate the Artistic tasks and assume responsibility for making sure the tasks get done. You maintain the Administrative duties and get rid of the Artistic ones.
Part Three: Set Goals to Bring Your Interests and Responsibilities in line

Step vi: The best way of making sure that something gets done is to set a specific, time limited goal. Identify two or three of the most important problem areas, and set realistic goals to change things.
Tip 2:
Remember that this is a model – it's a useful way of looking at things, but it can't possibly capture all of the complexities of the ways that people behave at work. Make sure that you interpret any conclusions with common sense.
Tip 3:
Also bear in mind that as you develop in your career you'll need to extend your skills into new areas. In particular, as you take responsibility for people and then move upwards within an organization, you need to develop the "Social" ability to work with other people, as well as other skills that normally go with other personality types (if you're going to be a CEO, there's a lot of "Conventional" work that you just have to do, and do well.)

Key Points

Holland’s Career Codes provides a useful framework for exploring your personal interests and the careers most likely to suit you.
Every occupation requires a particular set of characteristics. By identifying your particular interests you can quickly uncover the parts of your job that give your satisfaction. Likewise, you can identify areas of dissatisfaction and help you plan how to address these. This helps you develop your career in the right direction – one that will be a source of long-term fulfillment.
If you're thinking about your career, and the way it fits with the future shape of your life, look at our Life Plan Workbook. This helps you think about what you want to achieve with your life, and set the goals that will lead you there.

[krieger]

I want to be investigative (I)!

[Beautiful sky]

Social (S)

[April]

In case you're wondering I'm primarily Investigative, and secondary social. I'm very low on realistic and enterprising.

I've taken the real assessment and scored the same thing! It said I should be a social worker.

[krieger]

Data: S
Ideas: N
Things: T
People: F

Enterprisers are SF types according to this. Interestingly enough ENTjs are known as enterprisers in socionics and are often explicitly given this name.

Could quadras be linked to the cross instead maybe (just a thought)?

[Beautiful sky]

Data: S
Ideas: N
Things: T
People: F

Enterprisers are SF types according to this. Interestingly enough ENTjs are known as enterprisers in socionics and are often explicitly given this name.

Could quadras be linked to the cross instead maybe (just a thought)?

Yes, I did VI her ESFp; what you have offered makes a lot of sense, but why Data for S?

[krieger]

It's opposite to ideas (N). There is no other way to arrange the terms that keeps the internal relation between them intact. These relations are the only reason why linking the two systems is interesting the first place.

[Beautiful sky]

It's opposite to ideas (N). There is no other way to arrange the terms that keeps the internal relation between them intact. These relations are the only reason why linking the two systems is interesting the first place.

Interesting...fascinating...and true.
Yet so simple.
But how do you know if someone is reading for ideas or data? How do you know what they want or value?
I can't keep facts/data in my head (well I can but not as good as my sister or brother), all if not most of the details get pushed into a big picture; I have to try double harder then my ESFj sister to remember rediculous little facts; my motto is just keep the book at hand to reference if you need the fact.

That's why I just say to people, go here and see or read this and that and you will see.

[Blaze]

investigative: LII & ILE

realistic: ST's

artistic: IEI & SEI

social: SF's & NF's

conventional: LSI, ESI

enterprising: LIE, ILI, maybe LSE

the categories overlap with socionics types. not sure how exactly it would take some brain work which i don't know if i want to do on the weekend.

it is a good article though, based more on what people do than on who they are. i hate how they always say that investigative people don't make good leaders. i think intellectual leadership is different than conventional leadership.

[FDG]

IDK, I can't say that I am enterprising because I enjoy investigative tasks, I couldn't consider myself as its polar opposite. I'd like to creatively investigate the word & earn money for this investigation?

[Blaze]

further there's a bias in the description against realistic and investigative people. they articulate a weakness for both of these types but they do not do so for the others. the fact that vocational/business people are looking at this and thinking this way is dangerous since there's substantial limitation. a theory like this could become influential in vocational circles and managers in general could become biased against realistics and investigatives. in fact, i think think it may already have happened.

it's what happens when people don't want to hear fresh ideas, realistic assessments and such. the first step is to denigrate those folks and isolate them. next, you start to base the whole business and/or culture on politics, feelings, and financial expediency. a classic description of american culture at the moment.

/end rant.

[krieger]

enterprising: LIE, ILI, maybe LSE

What do you make of the fact that this type is said to be bad at research/investigative activities? In my opinion, it rules out any kind of NT type.

Are these types focussed on "people" and "data" like the diagram points out?

[Beautiful sky]

What do you make of the fact that this type is said to be bad at research/investigative activities? In my opinion, it rules out any kind of NT type.

Are these types focussed on "people" and "data" like the diagram points out?

yes, I think so, I noticed my error in agreement with Blaze's list on enterprisers. I strongly believe that enterprisers are SF

[Blaze]

What do you make of the fact that this type is said to be bad at research/investigative activities? In my opinion, it rules out any kind of NT type.

Are these types focussed on "people" and "data" like the diagram points out?

i know...i was kinda just looking at it for face value. any NT sees value in constructs and data....gamma NT's would likely say they see the good in investigations, but it's not what they do. i see gamma NT's as business people usually. at least the ones that i know. they don't tend to be academics or researchers. so if we say that the holland theory is about what people do not who they are then i spose it fits.

here at 16t though, we know that people are much much more than what we see them doing. people are much more capable than what the holland people would think. which is why their so called theory is dangerous. it's had a biased influence, which makes it all wrong from the beginning.

[krieger]

here at 16t though, we know that people are much much more than what we see them doing. people are much more capable than what the holland people would think. which is why their so called theory is dangerous. it's had a biased influence, which makes it all wrong from the beginning.

There isn't really any kind of guarantee that such biases don't also exist in socionics.

[Blaze]

There isn't really any kind of guarantee that such biases don't also exist in socionics.

yeah, really. look at the stratievskaya descriptions of ILE.

but at least there is some explanation of the idea that everybody has something to offer, that there is a niche for everybody. that idea is congruent with reality; we see that people develop niches.

[Aiss]

i know...i was kinda just looking at it for face value. any NT sees value in constructs and data....gamma NT's would likely say they see the good in investigations, but it's not what they do. i see gamma NT's as business people usually. at least the ones that i know. they don't tend to be academics or researchers. so if we say that the holland theory is about what people do not who they are then i spose it fits.

This diagram obviously doesn't work in 2 dimensions. We need to add another one, then fold it so that E and I are close and Gamma NTs fit snugly. Or something.

It's a good point about business since these types are often described (and I personally agree with it) as being more likely to put their abilities to work in business environment rather than academic research. It's a tendency rather than a rule, however, and doesn't make them fit stereotypical description of E here.

[Beautiful sky]

I'd say for myself, investigative, except I'm not pessimistic, and wouldn't say I have a gaping lack of leadership skills. Realistic some too, except the whole money and status thing, bleck, not me, and conventional except for avoiding unstructured activities.

LAST: No way, no how, not me at all is social. Also not enterprising. Doesn't at all describe me.


Edit: man, I don't know whether investigative or realistic is more me looking at the careers. Leaning towards investigative.

Having experience with ISTj's, and many that's for sure, I would say investigative realistic, so both.

I desire realistic for myself very much and out of want/suit/serve I often choose that type on a test, but I am not obviously.

I have a lot of idealistic in me so I would be social idealistic (Idealistic, complicated , introspective, sensitive, impractical and nonconformist-nonconformist is to old ways of doing things-I like new technology, but value traditional family life/values.)

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[munenori2]

I had to do this back when I had to take the ASVAB and my top three were artistic, social, and investigative.

[717495]

Took this test in school, I got AIR (1. artistic, 2. investigative, 3. realistic). There's a website they gave me that lists seemingly almost every possible career by tri-code and has a bunch of career information with various search routes.

I think one of the top careers for AIR was architect, in my book, but they listed it as ARI on the website.

[silverchris9]

Social: 12
Artistic: 11
Enterprising: 10
Investigative: 7
Conventional: 4
Realistic: 1

So basically, I want to work in a high-achieving field where I have to deal with lots of people to produce a project ultimately creative in nature. So my current career goal of working in the entertainment or advertising industry (if not on the performing side, then probably as some variety of producer; in fact, preferably as some kind of producer, for my "day job") is pretty accurate, according to these people.

@Pinnochio, nice post.

[Rick]

Yes, well Ideas is rather a combination of N and p, Data a combination of S and j. Then both People and Things are emphasized with Rationality. One could arrange the types like this:

There are inconsistencies using the six <-> Socionics types, though.

Nice. I am IEE and investigative followed by artistic. I'm not so sure about your placement of SLI, but I'll have to read what is meant by "conventional."

[anndelise]

Personally, I would have put it as
Ideas<----------------->Things (N vs S)
People<----------------> Data (F vs T)

Both S clubs deal more with concrete things than they do with abstract data.

NTs dealing with Ideas and Data.
NFs dealing with Ideas and People.
SFs dealing with Things and People.
STs dealing with Things and Data.

[Quote Unquote]

I really liked Pinocchio's interpretation and system of correlations, but I really disagreed in some points, he's graphic disposition seemed to contradict itself in many ways, so I created my own view on the issue, but his idea was great anyway.



I believe this can be considered at least logically consistent.

[Creepy-male]

put 5 at investigative
put 4 at artistic

and swing the 9 enneagram types around

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Quote Unquote]

It is not. ESI is way stronger in People than SEI, for example and SEI much stronger than ESI in Data, for example.

Can you at least point out where the mistakes are on my graphical description of the typological mechanics? I mean, It's so logically consistent: a binary system where 1 is total extroversion and 0 is total introversion, and gradations between these two poles determine different Socionics types. Let's take for example the rational axis(F/T): 1 stands for an ideal type lead totally by ; 0.75 stands for a type that has Te as its creative function and total balance between its creative function (Te) and its base function(Si or Ni); 0.5 represents the turning point between and , anything bigger than 0.5 would be Te, then smaller numbers would be Ti. So types that have "rationality index" close to 0.5 but smaller than it would be Ti lead types (with really strong Ti, actually). In the same way, types with rationality close to 0.5 but with bigger numbers, would be classified as having Te as its creative function but with a weaker role on the personality profile (probably a Ni or Si subtype). Therefore, under 0.25 it represents a type that has Ti as its creative function; 0 is a imaginary and purely theoretical type that would be lead only by its Irrational Function and nothing else (The existence of this point is absolutely systemic, not actual).

Moving toward the negative side of the rational axis, one would begin with a weak introverted ethical funcion, that would be weak Fi as creative function (that could indicate a Ne or Se subtype); then at the point -0.25 on the axis, we would have a type with fully developed as its creative function(we would have an equilibrium between the base function and the creative function); under -0.25 we would have types with Fi as their base function; -0.5 would be the turning point between Fi and Fe so any type that is between -0.5 and -0.75 would have as its creative function; anything under -0.75 would be lead by Fe; and finally at -1 we would have the theoretical type that would be lead solely by Fe (It's usefulness consists in being a parameter).

It would be constructive to notice that there is no real type on the points 1 and -1 of the chart. For example actual EIEs would be closer to -1 on the rational axis than SEIs and IEIs but they would never reach this point on the graphic representation because that would imply a total dominance of the base function, what is most surely impossible.

The rest of the Chart works in an analogous way.

Mr Pinocchio, I think your main mistake was to take the descriptions of Holland's types as as reliable data as the chart and graphic representation. If put together, they clearly contradict Socionics, what I have noticed even before of analyzing deeper this system. Taking into account that the Graphic representation is right and Socionics is also right, we can conclude that the description of the Holland types (at least the one from this source) is not really precise, congruent and coherent with the real mechanics of personality. I mean, have you noticed that they use vague words for characterizing the types? I mean, I've seen this kind of description on Astrology websites, it's not really consistent with reality and with itself. They don't draw a complete description that would be coherent and cohesive with clear principles, and also with the consequence of the interaction of these axioms. I think that anyone here can notice that the purpose and the intellectual approach of the source website on the Holland's career system is inconsistent and incoherent with Socionics, they don't fit well with each other.

1. Realistic (R):
These are people who like well-ordered activities, or enjoy working with objects, tools, and machines.

Realistic people:

• <LI class=bodytext>See themselves as mechanically or athletically talented, but may not be good with people. <LI class=bodytext>Value concrete and tangible things like - money, power, and status.
• Avoid "social" activities, those that need interaction with other people.

Common traits:
[LIST][*]Hard-headed, inflexible, persistent, materialistic, practical, and genuine.

I can think of many types that can see themselves in this obviously shallow description: LSE, SLE, LSI, SLI, even LIE in some cases.

You have to choose to work on the chart or basing yourself on the descriptions. You cannot work on both. I think that Holland's system is thus inconsistent with Socionics. I would say that it is even inconsistent with reality (If I didn't think so, I wouldn't be here).

[Aiss]

Can you at least point out where the mistakes are on my graphical description of the typological mechanics? I mean, It's so logically consistent: a binary system where 1 is total extroversion and 0 is total introversion, and gradations between these two poles determine different Socionics types.

I'm sure a lot of Flat Earth Society publications are logically consistent. This doesn't make them any more valid.


I think these career types aren't directly translatable into socionics.

[Quote Unquote]

I'm sure a lot of Flat Earth Society publications are logically consistent. This doesn't make them any more valid.


I think these career types aren't directly translatable into socionics.

you mean you can't point out any mistake, right? So I want to propose you a challenge: can you show any type of flaw that my description has? It seems you're letting intellectual jealousy guide your posts since sometime. You should let a profound compromise with truth - not with yourself - guide your scrutiny of the human soul. And also a deep compromise with truth - not with yourself - should be the sole principle in your relationship with other Socionics' students. If not, how can you dare to feel yourself as deserving any kind of credibility if you can only your own ego realization when you make yourself present in this forum (this also can applied to many other people here)? I don't trust anyone who is not totally devoted to truth and one can spot an impostor due to their blatant blindness for anything besides themselves.

If you think my description is not valid, can you show in which aspects? If you remain silent I will confirm my impression that you don't have much understanding but a plenty of envy instead.

I didn't have time for stating this, but my graphic system is both theoretically consistent, logical and also in complete accordance with reality. Absolutely! For example, it shows something really interesting: That even being lead by intuition, ILIs are less idea people than LIIs (less intuitive), that's not only obvious for anyone who can perceive this in reality, but also theoretically correct: any extroverted function has stronger effects on the personality of someone than if it were introverted, no matter in what position it is. So to say:

In the scale from strongest intuition to the weakest:

ILE/IEE > LII/EII > ILI/IEI > LIE/EIE > LSE/ESE > SLI/SEI > LSI/ESI > SLE/SEE

this is also the scale from the weakest to strongest sensory component of the ego.

Oh Aiss, if you don't accept the rationality and validity of my chart, you're being simply envious, egoistic and let's say... Mean!

Inferioty complex is not something that really fits to you... COUGH! COUGH!

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Aiss]

you mean you can't point out any mistake, right? So I want to propose you a challenge: can you show any type of flaw that my description has? It seems you're letting intellectual jealousy guide your posts since sometime. You should let a profound compromise with truth - not with yourself - guide your scrutiny of the human soul. And also a deep compromise with truth - not with yourself - should be the sole principle in your relationship with other Socionics' students. If not, how can you dare to feel yourself as deserving any kind of credibility if you can only your own ego realization when you make yourself present in this forum (this also can applied to many other people here)? I don't trust anyone who is not totally devoted to truth and one can spot an impostor due to their blatant blindness for anything besides themselves.

You forgot to add "/rant over".

If you think my description is not valid, can you show in which aspects? If you remain silent I will confirm my impression that you don't have much understanding but a plenty of envy instead.

I didn't have time for stating this, but my graphic system is both theoretically consistent, logical and also in complete accordance with reality. Absolutely!

I'll refresh your memory: Pinocchio already did point out one example of its invalidity, you defended it by claiming flawless logic alone. Translation of my previous post: logic isn't everything. You can "logically prove" all sort of unrealistic things.

You haven't merely not stated "accordance with reality" before, you dismissed it along with empirical objections against it. There's a whole lot of difference.

My other comment referred to disagreeing with any clear assignments of types between the two systems. If we go by real-world correlation... first, we don't know these, second, I wouldn't expect it to be nearly clear enough for a chart like that, especially when it comes to artistic. If we go with logic, as you and Pinocchio did, we arrive at unrealistic but pretty chart. If we go by stereotypes alone, IEI would probably be most artistic, SEE most enterprising leaning towards social, LSI most conventional and SLI most realistic. Oh, and put LIE somewhere between enterprising and realistic. Guess what? Doesn't work.

For example, it shows something really interesting: That even being lead by intuition, ILIs are less idea people than LIIs (less intuitive), that's not only obvious for anyone who can perceive this in reality, but also theoretically correct: any extroverted function has stronger effects on the personality of someone than if it were introverted, no matter in what position it is. So to say:

Your presumption about me minding ILI's placing is laughable. I've "defended" my type on many occasions; no need to dismiss the entire chart if it was my only problem, nor to avoid stating it. Maybe that's what Fe lot does to spare your tender feelings when they dare to disagree, I wouldn't know. I don't care about them nearly as much.

In case you failed to notice, I was responding to your dismissal of empirical validity, not even commenting on your original chart (!).

That the bolded sentence is both denying that intuition equals ideas (which I agree with) and claiming that intuition, in fact, equals ideas (which I don't agree with) should give you a pause. I suppose you could explain it by using it once as Intuition (socionics dichotomy) and the other time as intuition in conventional meaning, except then neither equating it with ideas nor deriving it from relation to Intuition you attempt later make sense.

In the scale from strongest intuition to the weakest:

ILE/IEE > LII/EII > ILI/IEI > LIE/EIE > LSE/ESE > SLI/SEI > LSI/ESI > SLE/SEE

this is also the scale from the weakest to strongest sensory component of the ego.

In what theory? Because it sure isn't socionics, unless you speak of conventional meanings of "sensory", "intuition" and "ego" and not socionics ones. In which case you may want to explain how you bind these terms to socionics before expecting it to be universally accepted.

Oh Aiss, if you don't accept the rationality and validity of my chart, you're being simply envious, egoistic and let's say... Mean!

Rationality as 'theoretically consistent with your ideas about IEs' is perfectly fine. Or not, depending on what your actual ideas about IEs are. Validity isn't. Logic doesn't imply validity. How many times do I have to repeat that?

Your little attempt at rhetorics is invalid even if you were right, since yours being right or not doesn't imply anything about my intentions. Of course, rhetorics are all about covering invalidity, but I personally never buy a product that is advertised as being chosen by all smart/nice/cool people or such without extra caution. In this case, the product is you and your theories, and the advertisement is seen above. I *have* to agree because otherwise you'll lie about my intentions that aren't in any way related to what I originally wrote? You *have* to be joking.

Inferioty complex is not something that really fits to you... COUGH! COUGH!

@Pinocchio: maybe what I say about PoLR judgments being strong and rationalized with creative will be clearer on an example. When in defense, Se-role takes over and negative PoLR judgments (envy and mean intentions, in this case) are produced, even though there's no reason for them. Yet the Ti-creative strives to rationalize them. That's how I see CA's reaction, at any rate - very similar to real life ILEs.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Linas]

We took this test then we had to do career planning work in highschool. I scored Enterprising/Social/Artistic. It's still in a way the same.

[Not A Communist Shill]

I was taking several Holland code tests recently, and decided that the "acceptable" ones were:
http://personality-testing.info/tests/RIASEC/
http://www.roguecc.edu/Counseling/HollandCodes/test.asp

(the first has a previous thread here, somewhat (it's the one that produces red bar graphs): http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...-s-Career-Code
(the second has a previous thread here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...lity-Type-Test

(There's probably older threads too that are not indexed for searching!)

I thought that there were other tests that were crummy in some way: ones that involved interpreting & choosing between images didn't seem satisfactory, in my view (in my case, they overestimated Artistic, generally: and that seems to be a criticism that the "official" Holland people have of unofficial tests.

Based on tests and using this document to weigh up the six codes: http://www.wiu.edu/advising/docs/Holland_Code.pdf
I decided I am IC (and perhaps in full, I am ICSARE
My self-perception is that I have significant strong inclination for I and C, and a significant weak inclination for R and E.

My observation of the designation of Holland codes to professions on O*Net (which are different at times to the one in the above PDF, although I didn't link the PDF for the profession codes) is that anything involving "E" (Enterprising) is a no-no (certainly in the first two positions), and everything with "R" (Realistic) first possibly also. However, I have noticed (as at least one other person commented here), that there is a lot of nuance in each code, at least as we might understand in Socionics terms. Physicists for example have the Holland code IR.

With the "S" (Social) code, it is clear that it covers high-intensity interactions (whether under pressure in a busy environment, or emotionally involving with a more relaxed environment), and low-intensity interactions (working as part of a familiar team, or passing the time of day with customers), and to a great extent, professions where you must actively "perform".

[The Exception]

I was taking several Holland code tests recently, and decided that the "acceptable" ones were:
http://personality-testing.info/tests/RIASEC/
http://www.roguecc.edu/Counseling/HollandCodes/test.asp

(the first has a previous thread here, somewhat (it's the one that produces red bar graphs): http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...-s-Career-Code
(the second has a previous thread here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...lity-Type-Test

(There's probably older threads too that are not indexed for searching!)

I thought that there were other tests that were crummy in some way: ones that involved interpreting & choosing between images didn't seem satisfactory, in my view (in my case, they overestimated Artistic, generally: and that seems to be a criticism that the "official" Holland people have of unofficial tests.

Based on tests and using this document to weigh up the six codes: http://www.wiu.edu/advising/docs/Holland_Code.pdf
I decided I am IC (and perhaps in full, I am ICSARE
My self-perception is that I have significant strong inclination for I and C, and a significant weak inclination for R and E.

My observation of the designation of Holland codes to professions on O*Net (which are different at times to the one in the above PDF, although I didn't link the PDF for the profession codes) is that anything involving "E" (Enterprising) is a no-no (certainly in the first two positions), and everything with "R" (Realistic) first possibly also. However, I have noticed (as at least one other person commented here), that there is a lot of nuance in each code, at least as we might understand in Socionics terms. Physicists for example have the Holland code IR.

With the "S" (Social) code, it is clear that it covers high-intensity interactions (whether under pressure in a busy environment, or emotionally involving with a more relaxed environment), and low-intensity interactions (working as part of a familiar team, or passing the time of day with customers), and to a great extent, professions where you must actively "perform".

If only your S and C were switched. Then your type would be I SCARE.

[Not A Communist Shill]

If only your S and C were switched. Then your type would be I SCARE.

I hadn't noticed that.

[sushi]

artistic-social. i literally get the same results on every typology test lol it's just labeled and worded differently.