IR test (by Sol)

[Shining]

To distinguish between mirror types is better to use other traits like dichotomies and IR. The difference between leading and creative is much lesser noticable for the typing and is easier for mistake. Dichotomies point to ILE more than LII. IR sympathies - to LII, but for this are better IRL people - type them, check impressions. At now you have contradictions to choose LII or ILE with assurance. I have not doubt in ILE, as I did not get from nonverbal what LII give me.

Yes, i am intending to try it.

[Myst]

Anyone (i.e. eunice, 1982slater, silke...) who's ever been exceptionally good at typing on this forum has used subtypes. It's just natural during the process of training oneself to VI, to notice the existence of the two subtypes. I did at one point. The fact that sol has not noticed them means his VI precision is not high. But that's not the only reason (and this subjetive); I checked his type galleries in his signatures, and disagreed with many of his typings. He seems to have pinned down certain types, but with others he tends to make mistakes. For example; he types SEE-Fi's as INFP usually.

I do also find subtypes useful for spotting some more refined distinctions both cognitively and both in other patterns. It also adds a nice extra principle to accommodate the observable ambiverted/"ambi-rational" leanings of many people.

[Rei]

[Sol]

My main version for Rei was SLI.
She said that got that sorting with the closed key.

[Hays]

Husband chose the group of INTp females as those he liked...no others made the list.

I chose one of the ESFp males.....oh and I do somewhat like Russel Brand but couldn’t ever have chosen a future with someone like him.

This lady looked mean and then when I clicked on the video she spoke so unnaturally!

WhisperAudios ASMR[/spoiler]

[Number 9 large]

interesting test. question its validity though, but the concept is there

i got this:

good
LSE
SEI
LIE
EII

meh
LSI
IEE
IEI
ESI
ILI
SEE
EIE
ESE

LII
ILE
SLE
SLI
bad

edit: forgot ESI, put it somewhere in the middle

[The Reality Denialist]

LSI umm
EII well... ok
IEI eh.. but I don't know.
LIE hmmm....
ILI ok
SLE whatever
LII ok, I think
SEE... no... way
ILE.. heh..
LSE hmm.... better than 1st hmm
ESI that looks OK but there is some sort of stiffness
SEI excellent
IEE kind of interesting but...
ESE cool
SLI kind of cool
EIE well, nah

[Sol]

@Number 9 large, @Troll Nr 007
We need to know your real types, while to be sure in this needs your video-interviews. IR test is secondary method still.

Also you both seems did not sorted as was recommended, but only gave groups with similar liking. This significantly reduces the use from your data. And after openning the key you can't just remake as was supposed in recommendations.

Number 9 large
should to think about ESI as own type

[Number 9 large]

@Number 9 large, @Troll Nr 007
We need to know your real types, while to be sure in this needs your video-interviews. IR test is secondary method still.

Also you both seems did not sorted as was recommended, but only gave groups with similar liking. This significantly reduces the use from your data. And after openning the key you can't just remake as was supposed in recommendations.

Number 9 large
should to think about ESI as own type

hi sol, actually i did sort them out one by one and put them in order. i just also categorized them by good meh and bad. so lse is my favourite and sli my least favourite

[Sol]

actually i did sort them out one by one and put them in order

Good, especially if the key was not opened beforhand. You may pm your video-interview, in case you are interested in my direct opinion.
What you have. In top4 are both base Te, while between the lowest base Te and the highest base Fe are 7(!) types - ~half of all.
In bottom4 you have for ESI: superego, conflictor, subrevisie.

You think yourself as LSI, what is close to ESI and without good IR checking it's not hard to mistake. I suspect your type as ESI.

// after video: not ESI

[wasp]

Dmitrij Shamov (AnchousJap)

this guy is still my favorite!

[Sol]

do you not consider that there could be an EII that you dislike ?

To do not feel IR effects clear enough? Yes, it's possibly. My perception is not absolute and conditions may allow significant noises.

> Or being EII means you have to like them automatically?

IR effect is very important. If I dislike a human as person, I'll doubt in his type to be my dual.

[lavos]

To do not feel IR effects clear enough? Yes, it's possibly. My perception is not absolute and conditions may allow significant noises.

> Or being EII means you have to like them automatically?

IR effect is very important. If I dislike a human as person, I'll doubt in his type to be my dual.

So you are saying that if you don't like a supposed dual is because the IR effect is not clear enough? What if you can feel the IR effect, and you still don't like the person? Not possible?

[Sol]

So you are saying that if you don't like a supposed dual is because the IR effect is not clear enough?

I may to do not feel significant friendly sympathy to my dual in case there are no good conditions. For example, if we do not talk informally IRL, that reduces the possibility for IR to be noticed as should.
Like if you'll have a veil on your eyes - you have lesser chance to understand the beauty of a woman.

> What if you can feel the IR effect, and you still don't like the person? Not possible?

IR effect of duality is friendly sympathy - this means to like.

[lavos]

IR effect of duality is friendly sympathy - this means to like.

Not true. I've met duals that I dislike if I think about it rationally. The ITR might work as intended, but they annoy me. It seems you and me operate differently.

[Sol]

Not true.

It's true as what I said follows from the logic of that terms.

> I've met duals that I dislike

Your perception could be affected by:
1. They could be not your duals, including because your opinion about own type is wrong. The easiest and most common reason when the theory may to do not work, if to take into account <20% average typing matches.
2. To duality relates the concrete kind of liking. You could relate the wrong one or impression could be mixed with non-types factor.
3. Conditions should fit the requirements to feel IR effects clearly.

The discussion is finished as positions and reasons of both sides are clear.

[lavos]

1. They could be not your duals, including because your opinion about own type is wrong. The easiest and most common reason when the theory may to do not work, if to take into account <20% average typing matches.

Nope.

2. To duality relates the concrete kind of liking. You could relate the wrong one or impression could be mixed with non-types factor.

Could you explain further?

3. Conditions should fit the requirements to feel IR effects clearly.

IR effects don't mean instant liking. This is what you don't seem to understand.

The discussion is finished as positions and reasons of both sides are clear.

Ok. But you are still wrong.

[Sol]

Could you explain further?

look at the sorting criterion

[Bertrand]

what does that mean

[maniac]

People who are ok:
EII
SLI
EIE
LII


ok but never romantic
IEI


I wonder how it compares to the last time I did it.

[lavos]

look at the sorting criterion

You mean this?

When watching examples, evaluate your intuitive impressions from their nonverbal - how generalized image from people of one type corresponds with the criterion of your "psychic comfort and friendly sympathy", rather than personal alienation.
Use examples only of other sex (which causes romantic passion), >= 3 examples per type (if the quantity allows), for every example watch >= 2 clips, every clip for several minutes with good seen face. The more you'll watch, the more correct will be generalized impression from the type. Note: for types' sorting use only the criterion above, not sexual or romantic interest.

I think I am beginning to see where you are coming from. It seems this method you use necessitates a -Ne +Fi approach (delta NF functions). But then if you value something else, it won't work as intended. For me it doesn't work (i suspect because my ds is -Fi and not +Fi like yours).

[Sol]

You mean this?

"psychic comfort and friendly sympathy"
Seems this is the main thing in impressions from duals, good IR and generally good friends.

> But then if you value something else, it won't work as intended.

Anyone may use functions Ne and Fi. The difference is how easier it will be (to have them strong is better) and how pleasant (when they are valued you'll have higher motivation to do the test with more attention and hence may do it more correctly).

> For me it doesn't work

It could be checked if you gave me your video to type you (like I understand the typology).

[wasp]

@Sol what's your take on rodney mullen's type? (skip to 1:50)

[Sol]

what's your take on rodney mullen's type?

INF*
youtube.com/watch?v=BoTYDfNqQjg

[ooo]

Sol, all this work of yours is really admirable but it's even completely unfounded, and therefore needs improvement, if you really care to make something constructive out of it.

Here are some ideas I came up with in order to make this same idea of yours be actually worthy of being spread around. Take notes.

- contact all of these people whose videos you've listed
- hand them a Dario Nardi's test
- hand them the 950+ questions russian socionics test
- ask them if they recognize themselves in the descriptions of the results they've scored
- take notes of the 2 scores and try to objectively evaluate the results
- list the people according to the results theyve scored in the tests

Result: totally unbiased, supersonic, genius, never done before, list of people accorded to their real cognitive functions. With the correct types!

This method will allow everyone to see that each type can actually behave differently, and it might even point towards new ideas about the types themselves.
Not just that, we might even came to discover that we like some characteristics from different types, over the type itself, therefore that should lead us in the direction of why we seem to be attracted, in real life, to things that are not comprehended in the IR theory. And this could explain why, for example, some people are not necessarily attracted by the best relationships suggested by socionics.

Good luck~

[Sol]

completely unfounded

It's founded on subjective experience fitting to the classical Socionics theory.
1) those examples give me impressions which fit to the IR theory for LSE,
2) those people are typed by intuitive-nonverbal method which I use on IRL people and see how their behavior, traits and relations fit to the theory
[fit good enough, not ideally]

It's possibly to notice this test may give reasonable or nonrandom results. It helps sometimes.
There stays what to improve still: better and more examples, lesser % of mistakes among examples, mb better sorting criterion, etc.

What else this test gives:
1) people study intuitive-nonverbal method and my understanding of the types
2) people may notice that IR theory works. without own long time researches
3) it's easy way to objectively prove the duality theory in the future. with my examples or typed by others. in case of success this will place Socionics to official science and may change a lot among people (psyche correction, good marriages, more humanistic ideology, etc)

> and therefore needs improvement, if you really care to make something constructive out of it.

What I did - have shown way to move. Others may go after me and make further improvements.
What I do - expand the list and correct mistakes. Mb later will try to improve the sorting criterion, the explanation of what to do.

> Result: totally unbiased

All those checkings are not needed for the test itself, as to show the test is good is needed the _sorting order_ fiting good to correct type of a typed one.

Also. No today tests have objective proof of high accuracy to trust them to change something. Only a few would do even a short test as have no interest in typologies. Russian test needs good translation to English, as to use google translator is lol for such purpose. What think about own correct type a typed person without typology knowledge means almost nothing.

[ooo]

There’s no classical theory for this kind of typing method. Jung doesn’t describe the types as you display them on here. While most of orthodox socionists don’t theorize these strong initial impressions.
Moreover:
1-You haven’t actually interacted with these people, you’re just basing everything on virtual impressions. But interaction is needed in RL.
2-Sure, that’s exactly my point, you don’t know their type but base all on your ideas… while thinking you’re an LSE.

I like the idea behind this test, and I think it would be a really interesting method if only it respected objectivity. Until it stays on the level of “my intuitive impressions”, without any real back-up or confirmation, then this will just stay in the folder of “How Sol views the types/socionics”.

However seemingly inaccurate tests might be, they still give objective quantifiable data that can be sorted out. The best tests out there analyze how our mind works, not how we look.

If there had to be a correlation for how our minds work/how we look, it must be asserted with rigorous analysis, not wishy washy "impressions".

[Sol]

There's no classical theory for this kind of typing method.

To make this list I used: model A, dichotomies and IR with me - all is part of classical theory.
There is IR theory which is part of classical Socionics and the discription of good IR as predisposing to friendship, friendly feelings and psychic comfort fits to it.
Understanding of people's traits by Ne and Fi, which are same functions like T used in tests, has nothing against the classical theory, but is just lesser usual. The mention of intuitive impressions from people of some types you may find in "Duality Nature" by Augustinavichiute, besides using this in typing is old and common practice (it's also evident where photos were thought as useful material).
Hence in this test are used only classical theory and even methods [in some sense]. That's it.

[nyessss]

Is this a test for IRs?

[ooo]

The mention of intuitive impressions from people of some types you may find in "Duality Nature" by Augustinavichiute, besides using this in typing is old and common practice (it's also evident where photos were thought as useful material).

I haven't found it in her essay. http://socioniko.net/ru/articles/aug-duality1.html, there are 2 pages more, are you referring to a passage in particular?

It's a very interesting read anyway, some parts describe very similarly the physiognomic data that I used in a thread last year. Thanks for suggesting it.

[Sol]

Is this a test for IRs?

for the type based on IR effects with the examples
to check IR effects is more comfortably to use bloggers list in the signature

[Sol]

I haven't found it in her essay.

You may find impressions from people in her types descriptions at the end, like from sights.
The examples of her describing the intuitive impressions from nonverbal:
"Что касается движений, то они у шизотимов фиксированные, причем у каждого типа ИМ разные. От угловатых и прыгучих до как бы скользящих. <...> У циклотима движения мягкие, всегда более или менее импульсивные."
"Лица экстравертов более подвижные, менее скованные, по ним видно, что человек может приказывать и требовать."
"Глаза интуитивного - это глаза человека, который смотрит и не видит. Глаза сенсорного, наоборот, очень хорошо видят и все замечают."

> It's a very interesting read anyway, some parts describe very similarly the physiognomic data

physiognomy is baseless. behavior should be used, including nonverbal one

[ooo]

I've read that part, still missing the IR impressions.

And what you/she refer/s to is exactly physiognomy... anyway nothing to do with nonverbal Ne impression, as she clearly defines what to look for and why it happens. nothing mysterious about it.

[Sol]

I've read that part, still missing the IR impressions.

I said above that method of "intuitive impressions from nonverbal" was used in some parts of that classical text. Then you asked where and I've pointed it.

What impressions relate to duality IR (and other good IR in lesser degree) mb in that text too. It should be in most duality IR descriptions about friendly sympathy and psychic comfort.
If people may intuitively feel types traits from nonverbal, hence they should feel IR effects related to those traits. They should like to feel/understand some traits and to like people of types having them. This fits to my experience and should yours when you read impressions from my SLE examples. If somewhere was said about irrational good feeling in a communication with duals - it's about IR effects taken from nonverbal, as there are no better ways. The core impressions of this good feeling I tried to describe in the sorting criterion.

You've said: "There's no classical theory for this kind of typing method."
I hope, that explained why IR test fits enough to the classical theory. Mb if to dig texts which I read many years ago I'd found additional links to this evidence.

> And what you/she refer/s to is exactly physiognomy

Physiognomy is about objective static traits of a body, but not about intuitive impressions from nonverbal behavior.

> anyway nothing to do with nonverbal Ne impression, as she clearly defines what to look for and why it happens

She describes general (Ne) impression from nonverbal, but not concrete measurements. You do not understand the core theory.

The impression of movements' smoothness may also be related to Si, but this:
"видно, что человек может приказывать и требовать"
"глаза человека, который смотрит и не видит. Глаза сенсорного, наоборот, очень хорошо видят и все замечают"
..is definetely Ne.

[ooo]

Physiognomy is not necessarily static, but includes all sorts of non verbal. What you use for typing and what Ausra attempted to pinpoint is physiognomy. Check it out.

There's no use of Ne nonverbal in Ausra's theory, it's all based on physical characteristics, gestures, body motions. S.

There's almost nothing in Ausra that describe the IR and its impressions, therefore you're basing it on something read somewhere else, I guess.

Her descriptions of the types in some cases do not seem to match with yours, but it's fine, I guess you've developed your own very personal system with time.

Good luck with it.

[Bertrand]

is.. is this conflict.?!

(or super ego perhaps?)

[ooo]

it would be very weird if it was activity, wouldnt it? : )

[Aylen]

Is this a test for IRs?

Yes, but only if you are in agreement with all his typings.

[Sol]

Yes, but only if you are in agreement with all his typings.

To agree with all typings is redundantly, as for getting correct type image some examples mb wrong. The more examples to look - the more correct image will be.

He may give me video. I'll type him and then he'll can check how the impressions fit to the theory. If they fit good - he may trust.

He also may do the IR test sorting which may show reasonable result to trust my typing. And then use the examples with more attention. Also there were results of other people which shaw the test works to some degree. If all those people followed my recommendations - there would be more good results.

is.. is this conflict?

yes, of one IEI with the rough reality

[ooo]

you seem in conflict with everything u quote as a reference instead, not very Te of you