.
Easy Socionics Test
.
Last edited by 717495; 04-27-2011 at 12:26 PM. Reason: User-requested title change
I have reason to believe you're the INFp or Romantic type. Click here for a description.
Thanks for answering my questions, and I hope I could be of help. Be seeing you around._
I get INFP
Ah. My bad.Originally Posted by polikujm
EDIT:
Result: ENTp
This scared me at first when my screen went blank. I got TeNi; another useless test based on shallow dichotomies.
Just make sure to answer every question as accurately as possible, then it should be fine.
I get INTp.
I did, these are topical personality traits, and it's a test easy to see through. If you've ever taken an MBTI test, you know exactly what choices mean what.
Take a guess.
LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP
If the questions were easy to see through you shouldn't be getting the wrong type :wink:.
Got INTj
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
Too easy a test. I almost forgot how I function after all these tests. I got INTj anyhow.
Got ISTp. And I didn't drink nothing while taking it. That's progress.
The point isn't to guess your type, smartass. The test is supposed to gauge what your type is, and it didn't measure the correct parameters to get my type, nor others'.
You selected systematic and planful? I agree, you seem more rational from my impression. Ne dominants are not well known for being planful, they are usually very open-ended. Or else it would take away from their thought process and they wouldn't be very good at being so open and explorative. It is still normal to identify with using Ne though without being Ne dominant.
"Systematic and planful," for one, isn't mutually exclusive from "open and explorative," secondly, the IMEs themselves don't predict these behaviors, it's just commonplace here to use associations like this. My point here is, this is an MBTI test and not a Socionics one; it (improperly) deduced that I was-leading by asking me if I was extraverted and logical, but
Bad test. As others have said, it's rooted in shallow and narrow dichotomies, and barely takes functional analysis into account. Ne-subtype INFjs can act rather irrational-like, for example.
"I have reason to believe you're the INFp or Romantic type. Click here for a description.
Thanks for answering my questions, and I hope I could be of help. Be seeing you around._"
Removed at User Request
I got INTp.
When I went through the test again and chose "systematic and planful" instead of "casual and open ended" I get INTj.
I feel I am "systematic and casual."
The end is nigh
I get INTp.
INTP
I scored INTp.
If your mind tells you one is Rational and one is Irrational, you shouldn't be picky about the words used to describe the two, because at least you understood the main idea. To recognize the dichotomies and choose the wrong one because you don't like the phrasing is just being spiteful towards the test. I could understand if you didn't know which was which however.
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
The whole point of the test is to be able to accurately type someone who doesn't know Socionics or the terms. Going into the test saying "I know my type, so I should pick the choices that match my type" is stupid, why do you need to take the test? If I didn't know what any of my choices actually meant, I would have still picked the ones that I did, which is my whole point. Not to go "Oh, I know how to get my type!"
You know that going by this "criteria", 90% or even more on here are mistyped. I mean, are you aware of that ?
People can live in their delusions, doesn't affect me
I know. I don't give a damn fuck about it either, trust me. You type IEE. You Get LIE as a result. I type xxxx(People can live in their delusions, doesn't affect me). I get SLI and so on. It has been established(?) that the test is shite, alright. Fine with me, and I ain't lying nor pretending. Let's see some action. It's about time. I was growing tired of all this blahblah and blah. That means I do accept the challenge.
Picking the choices that match your type is logical if you are 100% sure of your type. I just find it strange you wouldn't just take the test in your own shoes.
I took the test to find out how it works, like all tests I take. It's not detailed enough to be accurate for the average joe, but it should get the club right most of the time, if the taker knows the vocab.
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
No, but the rational can be open-ended, explorative, casual, and spontaneous, but just never as much as the Ne dominant himself. There is too much dissimilarity between the principles of rationality and irrationality to fully be capable of using Ne as the "dominant" function.
Chances are if you relate to being the logical variant of EJ, you likely mistyped yourself in MBTI. But if you relate to the ethical variant, then you're fine.
Yes, that's right. If they know the correct meaning of the simple vocab, it won't be a problem. But if they guess at the meaning then they will be biased.
I think you're missing the point of these tests lol
What about people who don't understand the concepts? If the goal of these tests are to pick the one that you know are meant to correlate to your type then there's 0 point in doing them. The point of a test is to help the test-taker to better understand their own type, not to self-affirm it. The questions a test asks can be phrased in any infinite number of ways to result in any response, regardless of whether or not the underlying concept is understood by the test taker.
Those who don't understand the concepts will get a wrong answer. If they're smart, they will take the test multiple times to find out exactly what correlates to what and learn accordingly. They will also find which 1 or 2 dichotomies they are sure of and which are debatable, and go on looking for more tests with more descriptions. As time goes towards infinity, they will gather enough information to be sure on all four dichotomies, and therefore their type.
You guys are just using your intuition to examine "which one I would choose if I wasn't knowledgeable". This ignores the fact that you are knowledgeable, so it's not guaranteed that it is indeed what you would have chosen. For all you know, your past, less knowledgeable self might have gotten the right answer. Normally I hold my past self in almost as much esteem as my present self, but not everyone does.
Last edited by Crispy; 09-13-2010 at 01:50 AM.
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
Then the test is useless.
I think people assume too much that the concepts are difficult to understand, and Socionics is complicated, so when they take the right kind of test like this, they are automatically skeptical of the result. But if they repeat the test every now and then to gradually realize their type, they will become confident with how these basic concepts form the 16 types and they don't need to change their understanding around to make it sound more professional or intricate, or to fit around some new idea. There are hundreds of ways you could do that, and say what type you are, and none of them will help more than sticking with the basics--the dichotomies and the IM descriptions provided in the test. Though some people are obstinate and can't change back to thinking simple, and will always have distorted ideas, unless they take a long break. If someone says that you can be both rational and-dominant, then its obvious they need to step back and assess what they've already covered. Like its been said, you use every function, you can be IP and use
, or be EJ and use
Let's recall that Socionics is mainly about duality, so if two of you are both irrationally-led, for example, and have the dominant functions that complement one another, likeand
, and you are confident that you are really both IP and EP from taking the tests and learning the simple concepts, then you are starting to get the picture. From here you mainly need to focus around your experiences and not feed your enormous abstract mind with more profitless ideas, when there's already something that works.
If you are knowledgeable there would be no need to take a test for the same reason as less knowledgeable people. What I am doing, and what I assume Mattie is doing too, is testing the validity of the test using our knowledge of both socionics and ourselves as a basis for accuracy. We're testing the test itself, not ourselves. However, in the case of other people who don't know socionics that well, they would use the test as a basis for understanding socionics and themselves, which is essentially the opposite of what Mattie and I are doing. The way we're testing it isn't by what concepts the test is "trying to get at," but rather it's how the test is specifically aiming to represent those concepts via specific implementations of words and phrasings. If those phrasings are off, then the results are going to be off as well.
As are most socionics test. The only utility in them is discovering what matches what.
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
Another thing I think people assume is that if they think they're an EII, for example, but are actually an irrational and test as so, and they recieve INFP as their type, then the result is "way off" because all the values are switched around. However that's an illusion that the type is way off, because IEIs and EIIs are similar, they have the same strengths and similar focuses. Except one type, IEI, is irrational and uses and primarily processes with a different IM that is lead by an irrational mindset, and looks for their complement in Se types, where as EII is rational and looks for a rational. The two types also have the same weaknesses, but they need to be backed up in different ways. So IEIs and EIIs are quite similar, which is why LSEs and SLEs can likely confuse the two when looking for a dual, but eventually find mistakes in their PoLR once getting to know them better.
But its key to understand that you can't have a rationally-ruling dominant function, have a rational dual, but not be rational yourself. The IMs don't fit into that puzzle. If you accurately test as I N F and P you always have dominantin IEI for instance, actually has a larger disconnect than
and
As far as being
I have actually gotten INFj. Not bad.
"Open-ended" sounds like Ne. "Casual" sounds like alpha and/or Si/Ne values. That's how I end up identifying with it.
True enough about the creative function being a sort contrast to the leading function. However, your theory that "P" corresponds to an irrational leading function is not necessarily true. It depends very much on what qualities are ascribed to J/P. Think about it this way; an IEI has irrational introversion, but rational extraversion in their conscious blocks (Ego and superego). Thus the extraverted activities (at least the ones that they are consciously aware of) of an EII are irrational or "P". It takes an understanding of a JiPe type's subjective life experiences/expressions to notice their true Rational nature, yet on the onset of a relationship and in all adapted aspects of their persona they would appear irrational (Rather, it would appear that the Ij has an irrational understanding of objective influences and a rational understanding of their subjective composition).Another thing I think people assume is that if they think they're an EII, for example, but are actually an irrational and test as so, and they recieve INFP as their type, then the result is "way off" because all the values are switched around. However that's an illusion that the type is way off, because IEIs and EIIs are similar, they have the same strengths and similar focuses. Except one type, IEI, is irrational and uses and primarily processes with a different IM that is lead by an irrational mindset, and looks for their complement in Se types, where as EII is rational and looks for a rational. The two types also have the same weaknesses, but they need to be backed up in different ways. So IEIs and EIIs are quite similar, which is why LSEs and SLEs can likely confuse the two when looking for a dual, but eventually find mistakes in their PoLR once getting to know them better.
But its key to understand that you can't have a rationally-ruling dominant function, have a rational dual, but not be rational yourself. The IMs don't fit into that puzzle. If you accurately test as I N F and P you always have dominant
As far as being
The "outer" lifestyle of an Ne or Se creative may be relaxed, casual, disorderly, chill, fluid, artful, or whatever else you might want to ascribe to P. Their "inner" life is not as apparent to an observer, which is exactly how things should be, otherwise their subjectivity would distort a balance that is only "fair" when determined by an objective function. Pe and Je rarely take notice of consistent psychic states (introversion), unless of course it represents the entirety of the subject-matter under scrutiny.
Last edited by ArchonAlarion; 09-14-2010 at 12:06 AM.
The end is nigh
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
