NEW TEST!!! USES VIDEOS - GET TO LOOK AT HOT WOMEN!

[XoX]

ESFj, ENFp, INFj, or ISFp

interesting. I dont know why i am such a weird INTj.

We both are !

You both are !

[Ms. Kensington]

Favorite Functions:
Ne
Si
Te
Fi

5th Function
Sensing

Umm.. What does this mean? I don't understand the test.
And it's Too wordy.

this means you are enfp

[snegledmaca]

I got this, which I think is ILI and IEI.

Favorite Functions:
Ni
Si
Ti
Fi

5th Function
Sensing

[Angel von Himmel]

Favorite Functions:
Ne
Si
Te
Fi

5th Function
Sensing

Umm.. What does this mean? I don't understand the test.
And it's Too wordy.

That is ENFp ...

[Angel von Himmel]

I got this, which I think is ILI and IEI.

Favorite Functions:
Ni
Si
Ti
Fi

5th Function
Sensing

INFx probably INFp

[Angel von Himmel]

Favorite Functions: Ne Si Te Fi

5th Function (5th function in socionics, except this is the 4th Inferior function in Jungian psychology)

Sensing
Intuition
Feeling

Quadra Values:
(compare this to your 'favorite functions')

Alpha: Ne,Ti,Fe,Si
Beta: Se,Ti,Fe,Ni
Gamma: Ni,Te,Fi,Se
Delta: Ne,Te,Fi,Si
Superior/inferior function

If Inferior = Sensing
than Superior = Intuition

If Inferior = Intuition
than Superior = Sensing

If Inferior = Thinking
than Superior = Feeling

If Inferior = Feeling
than Superior = Thinking

1st q. was hardest for me. like, "would you notice her in a dancehall?" well, yeah, of course. but then i realized i probably wouldn't notice the details unless i sat there and stared. i still liked the test pretty well. straightforward, not too predictable.

interpretation?

ENFp, ESTj, or ISTp

[FDG]

wtf...

Favorite Functions:
Ni
Si
Te
Fe
5th Function (5th function in socionics, except this is the 4th Inferior function in Jungian psychology) Intuition
Thinking
Feeling

this would be IP/EJ ?

[FDG]

The important thing is that sensors click no for the option, because they are usually use to seeing what is in their surroundings right off anyways and are less likely to say yes to that one.

But sorry mcnew, have you ever been to a dance hall/disco full of people? It's impossible to notice everybody straight away, especially if the disco is big...

[Angel von Himmel]

The important thing is that sensors click no for the option, because they are usually use to seeing what is in their surroundings right off anyways and are less likely to say yes to that one.

But sorry mcnew, have you ever been to a dance hall/disco full of people? It's impossible to notice everybody straight away, especially if the disco is big...

This was the problem with my last tests ... people getting caught up in the stupid details and not looking at it from a function perspective.

[aestrivex]

The important thing is that sensors click no for the option, because they are usually use to seeing what is in their surroundings right off anyways and are less likely to say yes to that one.

But sorry mcnew, have you ever been to a dance hall/disco full of people? It's impossible to notice everybody straight away, especially if the disco is big...

This was the problem with my last tests ... people getting caught up in the stupid details and not looking at it from a function perspective.

]


yeah... but you have to address these details. when you don't, it clouds the meaning of the question to the point where it's almost incomprehensible what you're even talking about. frankly, i don't think your questions are even close to valid functional measures either.

[Angel von Himmel]

They have to be valid ... I took all of question examples from a book written by some guy at the Jungian institute in Switzerland. Obviously the problem is unclarity of wording and people getting caught up in details that have nothing to do with typology. Otherwise, they are accurate.

[aestrivex]

aha. that's the problem. you're using jungian material and pretending it's socionics. that's why these functional descriptions are so badly off; even where the types were similar, much of jung's interpretation of functions differs tremendously from socionics.


really, functions and types were never what jung was about as an analytical psychiatrist. he developed a number of tendencies of the different types which were probably valid, but refrained from making the assumption that all people have a type and generally saw the nature of a person's type as very, very different from how it is described in socionics, MBTI, and all the other present pop-psychologies of today. i find his discussions of psychological types to be absolutely useless, but much of his analysis, particularly on the nature of religion and certain aspects of his works on unconscious forms of motivation (although not the concept of anima, which i never really understood or bought into) i find to be highly insightful and generally correct, albeit in a mostly metaphysical and unmeasurable sense.

[Angel von Himmel]

aha. that's the problem. you're using jungian material and pretending it's socionics. that's why these functional descriptions are so badly off; even where the types were similar, much of jung's interpretation of functions differs tremendously from socionics.

It was information on the Inferior Function versus the Dominant function, and was not actually by Jung it was from a contemporary of his.

[aestrivex]

aha. that's the problem. you're using jungian material and pretending it's socionics. that's why these functional descriptions are so badly off; even where the types were similar, much of jung's interpretation of functions differs tremendously from socionics.

It was information on the Inferior Function versus the Dominant function, and was not actually by Jung it was from a contemporary of his.

hardly makes a difference.

[Angel von Himmel]

aha. that's the problem. you're using jungian material and pretending it's socionics. that's why these functional descriptions are so badly off; even where the types were similar, much of jung's interpretation of functions differs tremendously from socionics.

It was information on the Inferior Function versus the Dominant function, and was not actually by Jung it was from a contemporary of his.

hardly makes a difference.

You should read the book I got the examples from before making that determinination or atleast before trying to say that Jung is hard to understand in order to blow off examples found in a book written by someone else who does not write the least bit like Jung.

[aestrivex]

oh please.

i'm assuming that the writing is fairly similar in terms of content to the writings of jung. if it isn't, well that's a different story, but something need not recite jung verbatim to be describing the same thing, which is not necessarily socionics. i feel like you're trying to overplay the importance of jung's writing style just in order to prove your point. it is probably correct that the book you have differs in some subtle ways from the teachings of jung, but i believe it is nonetheless fair to make a rather broad distinction between jung and more contemporary socionics.



more importantly, even if your thing isn't jung, it's still not a good measure of socionics, as evidenced by the poor correlations to the test results. note that almost everybody that's taking your tests is getting unexpected results (and this has occurred on pretty much all of the tests you have created so far); from this, it might be reasonable to assume that something is wrong with these tests. yes, your lack of clarity in writing is a part of it. but i think i understand where you're coming from a lot of the time and i still don't believe it has any real relation to socionics information elements.

[Angel von Himmel]

more importantly, even if your thing isn't jung, it's still not a good measure of socionics, as evidenced by the poor correlations to the test results.

By 'poor coorelation' you have to measure subjective information versus objective information; taking that most people's opinions of their types are subjective in the first place how can you even begin to make a measure for 'poor coorelation' in relation to this test? It is just as applicable to say it could be the other way around, in that the test could be generally right in certain ways and people totally incorrect about themselves in general. In fact, there are a few people on here who took this test who claim to be certain types, who I have really suspected were of a different type and actually got fairly close to the type I think they actually are. Is this just as equally subjective?

In any case, I personally do not think that the information on the test majorly differs in any way from socionics. In fact, I would say that there is a higher correlation than is given credit. The main problem is simply clarity and the problem of preventing people from getting caught up in mindsets that cause them to choose wrongly. However, you have to remember that if I allowed people to be able to choose in a way that they could predict their type result, then that would be just as counter-intuitive and just as flawed. So, I do the best I can. If I never try anything weird, bizaare, or different, than I would never discover anything new now, would I?

[aestrivex]

It is just as applicable to say it could be the other way around, in that the test could be generally right in certain ways and people totally incorrect about themselves in general.

this is where you're wrong; there does exist some consensus as to what the socionics functions are. i am saying this without regard to jungian typology, as i really don't know the particulars of how it might differ, but, essentially, it comes down to the fact that if you live in a fantasy world where you're always right, then you're always going to be right, but in the real world, there is something which is actually going on, whether you're right or not.


before jumping ahead further, let me clarify that i am not bashing your test because it has failed to produce results. i'm bashing it because the way it handles the functions doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever, and the results it has produced have done nothing to dissuade me from that perspective.

[Angel von Himmel]

It is just as applicable to say it could be the other way around, in that the test could be generally right in certain ways and people totally incorrect about themselves in general.

this is where you're wrong; there does exist some consensus as to what the socionics functions are. i am saying this without regard to jungian typology, as i really don't know the particulars of how it might differ, but, essentially, it comes down to the fact that if you live in a fantasy world where you're always right, then you're always going to be right, but in the real world, there is something which is actually going on, whether you're right or not.

I never said I was right, but I did imply realitivity of who thinks they are right. In the real world, the implication is of an illusion of lack that causes competition between those who think they are right. This, of course, is not how the world should be, but often ends up that way. In a perfect world it would not be this way.

before jumping ahead further, let me clarify that i am not bashing your test because it has failed to produce results. i'm bashing it because the way it handles the functions doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever, and the results it has produced have done nothing to dissuade me from that perspective

I know, and that is why I think it is a misunderstanding.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Angel von Himmel]

See, the thing is that you are not suppose to know what the question is asking, because if you did then that would bias the result immediatelly. However, the test also needs to be accurate. If the test just gave you a result exactly the type you thought you would get, is it accurate? Or is it just telling you what you new you would get?

[Mea]

See, the thing is that you are not suppose to know what the question is asking, because if you did then that would bias the result immediatelly. However, the test also needs to be accurate. If the test just gave you a result exactly the type you thought you would get, is it accurate? Or is it just telling you what you new you would get?

Not knowing what the question is looking for is different from not understanding the question at all.
Like you read the question and think: Huh?? I don't understand the question?? How am I gonna answer it??
You know...

[Angel von Himmel]

See, the thing is that you are not suppose to know what the question is asking, because if you did then that would bias the result immediatelly. However, the test also needs to be accurate. If the test just gave you a result exactly the type you thought you would get, is it accurate? Or is it just telling you what you new you would get?

Not knowing what the question is looking for is different from not understanding the question at all.
Like you read the question and think: Huh?? I don't understand the question?? How am I gonna answer it??
You know...

Well ... is understanding the question synonomus with manipulating the results of the tests in a predictable way? If yes, then people should not be understanding the questions. If no, then people need to understand the questions ...

[ataronchronon]

Favorite Functions:
Ne
Si
Te
Fi
5th Function Thinking

I was very confused. I had to read some questions several times over.
I'm guessing this means I'm an EII, but I disagree.

[Expat]

I got

Favorite Functions:
Ne
Si
Te
Fi

5th Function (5th function in socionics, except this is the 4th Inferior function in Jungian psychology)
Sensing
Intuition
Thinking

So I guess this makes me ENFp in this test?

Ah, almost identical results as implied

aha. that's the problem. you're using jungian material and pretending it's socionics. that's why these functional descriptions are so badly off; even where the types were similar, much of jung's interpretation of functions differs tremendously from socionics.

I have already made this point, but it's always important to repeat it -- Jung's types/functions are not the same as Socionics, at least his description/interpretation of them is different. If we assume that the Socionics types/functions are the "true" ones, Jung's are necessarily flawed.

[anndelise]

fwiw
after reading that expat got enfp on the test, i finally decided to take a look at it
i couldn't get past the first part of the first question
i then scanned some of the other questions

it seems to me that there is an awful lot of leading at the beginning of the questions, telling people what to look for, and worded in a not very neutral way (test writer's bias is noticable)


i liked your scenarious you tried writing, but being in written form i think would be difficult for the writer to keep out own bias
i think videos is a good way to go
i think asking people distinct questions only AFTER watching the video AND preventing them from going back to rewatch the video to answer the questions might be an option
also maybe something like sorting through what the person noticed most over what the person noticed least
for example,

Please order the following according to what you noticed or payed attention to the most over what you noticed or payed attention to the least:
her clothing color
her clothing style
her ethnicity
her movements
her style of movements
the individual movements
the location
she is probably kinky
she is probably a professional dancer
she probably dances other styles as well as the one she did here
she was probably dancing for the enjoyment of other people
she was probably dancing for her own personal enjoyment
I imagined myself dancing with her
I imagined myself getting my groove on with her
I imagined myself dancing in her place
I can see her dancing even now after the video is over

or maybe even asking specific questions such as
The girl wore A) short shorts or B) a mini skirt or C) I didn't notice
The girl's top was A) black or B) dark blue or C) I didn't notice
(I didn't watch the video so take the above questions as just examples of what could be asked)

(note, i don't particularly agree with the associations between the questions and the "functions/types", I was just using the first question's components as an example of what I am referring to)

[raisonpure]

The girl and her dance moves may be sexy as hell, but it's lacking in Se. I don't care much for the colours; I look for force, intensity, controlled tension, and persistence. While I was venturing around today, I discovered the Yuan Ji dance and immediately decided that it was the exemplification of Se:

"The Chinese characters for Tai Chi Chuan can be translated as the 'Supreme Ultimate Force'. The notion of 'supreme ultimate' is often associated with the Chinese concept of yin-yang, the notion that one can see a dynamic duality (male/female, active/passive, dark/light, forceful/yielding, etc.) in all things. 'Force' (or, more literally, 'fist') can be thought of here as the means or way of achieving this ying-yang, or 'supreme-ultimate' discipline."

Consider putting the hot-girl dance next to a video of the Yuan Ji dance, and ask the participants to decide which one they like better. I WOULD PICK THE LATTER WITHOUT A SECOND THOUGHT!

[video width=400 height=350:548a4fbd5a]http://www.indigenouspeople.net/YuanJi/picnic14.mpg[/video:548a4fbd5a]
The first thing that caught my attention about this dance was the unified resounding SNAP of the fans, which sort of pierces through the air. This qualifies for Intensity, "The magnitude of sound (usually in a specified direction)".

Secondly, the militaristic music. Finally, a dance that was not so much about seduction, but self-control, power, war, and all that good stuff.

Thirdly, there was a quality about the movements that was arresting... You can feel the tension in the dancers' bodies as they reach out and seize in. But I look for the one who does this very slowly, since it signifies control.

I compare the movements of a dancer to the rest, singling out the ones who can't bend low enough, can't jump high enough, can't stretch far enough, and whose movements are awkward, meek, or too hurried. I scan for those who give their all into every gesture with the least amount of missteps. Once I've found a dancer who is brimming with contained energy (their contours will noticeably stand out from the rest), I can lock my attention on him/her for as long as he/she can keep it up. So as a test for persistence, I can intently watch a dance over and over again until the person starts fumbling. If only for no other reason than that it's MESMERIZING. The dance is ideal for developing presence.

[jaja]

Favorite Functions:
Ne
Si
Te
Fi

5th Function (5th function in socionics, except this is the 4th Inferior function in Jungian psychology)

[ScarlettLux]

Ni
Si
Te
Fe

5th: Sensing

Haha, how does this make sense?

[Khamelion]

Yes or No Question: I may or may not like art because it is something that is beautiful or not beautiful. Although sometimes I think negative things about such and such art pieces, but do not say them with the wish the negative will go away or I get caught up in the details of such art work and sometimes accidentally drown out any sort of valid points anyone can make about the speculative time periods or other observable facts from the art

WHAT?!

This test is weird, I wouldn't choose either A or B for the first one. I actually only noticed her lines, how easily she moves and keeps the lines of her body in such a way that appears graceful and smooth, but exciting. I also thought "I wish I was that cooridinated"


Ni
Si
Ti
Fi

5th Function: Intuition Feeling

So this means my weakest function is Intuition and Feeling, and my dominat is Sensing and Thinking?

[Gilly]

This is, without exception, the single worst idea for a test I that have ever been exposed to.

[Creepy-bg]

this method is still king daddy of all typing methods...

http://the16types.no-ip.info/forums/...socionics+type

[Exodus]

Somebody lock this thread, please...

[Garmonbozia]

Favorite Functions: Ni
Se
Te
Fi
5th Function (5th function in socionics, except this is the 4th Inferior function in Jungian psychology) Sensing
Intuition


Quadra Values:
(compare this to your
'favorite functions') Alpha: Ne,Ti,Fe,Si
Beta: Se,Ti,Fe,Ni
Gamma: Ni,Te,Fi,Se
Delta: Ne,Te,Fi,Si
Superior/inferior function If Inferior = Sensing
than Superior = Intuition

If Inferior = Intuition
than Superior = Sensing

If Inferior = Thinking
than Superior = Feeling

If Inferior = Feeling
than Superior = Thinking


That whole test made me really uncomfortable!