SOCIONICS TEST iPsyght - Socionics Type Indicator v.3

iPsyght - Socionics Type Indicator v.3

TEST




Socionics Type Profiles

Alpha

Intuitive Logical Energiser (ILE)


Sensory Ethical Integrator (SEI)


Ethical Sensory Energiser (ESE)


Logical Intuitive Integrator (LII)




Beta

Ethical Intuitive Energiser (EIE)


Logical Sensory Integrator (LSI)


Sensory Logical Energiser (SLE)


Intuitive Ethical Integrator (IEI)




Gamma

Sensory Ethical Energiser (SEE)


Intuitive Logical Integrator (ILI)


Logical Intuitive Energiser (LIE)


Ethical Sensory Integrator (ESI)




Delta

Logical Sensory Energiser (LSE)


Ethical Intuitive Integrator (EII)


Intuitive Ethical Energiser (IEE)


Sensory Logical Integrator (SLI)

 

Attachment 10785


The description of my type is really really accurate.

Share your result!

maybe it's because i'm tired but the wording is a bit rough on some questions and on a few i had to just pick one because either/neither option was more me, but in the end it gave a typical result for me.

Quote:

---

iPsyght thinks that you are: Ethical Intuitive Integrator (EII)

---

.

I got LII. This test is the best socionics test i made (relatively brief, with good questions and answers).

Taking the test right now.

The first page seems to deal with :Si: vs :Se: valuing. The :Si: valuing parts are very Type 9, whereas the Se ones are very Type 8. And while most 9s are :Si: valuing, and most 8s are :Se: valuing, that doesn't mean that all people with a 9 fix are :Si: valuing, or that :Si: in itself is actually Type 9 etc. There are :Se: valuing people who prefer peace (mostly IEI and ESI 9s), just as there are :Si: valuing people who are more prone to anger and being blunt (mainly LSE 8s).

Equating :Si: with 9 behavior/fix and :Se: with 8 behaviour/fix is a standard trend in Socionics. Just like :Fe: is often being equated with Social instinct behaviour and vice versa. There are correlations for sure, but they are not rules.

Okay, just finished taking it. I think the first page could benefit from some work, but other than that, good test.

I actually got:

iPsyght thinks that you are: Intuitive Ethical Integrator (IEI)

At first I thought I might get EII because of some of my answers on the first page.

P.S: While the type description is rather good, I find it quite ironic that I wouldn't type any celebrity pictured on it as IEI. :p
Especially typing Marilyn Monroe as IEI is rather bizarre to me, but okay...

Glad the World Socionics Society test and descriptions are going down well!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cassandra

Okay, just finished taking it. I think the first page could benefit from some work, but other than that, good test.

I actually got:

iPsyght thinks that you are: Intuitive Ethical Integrator (IEI)

At first I thought I might get EII because of some of my answers on the first page.

P.S: While the type description is rather good, I find it quite ironic that I wouldn't type any celebrity pictured on it as IEI. :p
Especially typing Marilyn Monroe as IEI is rather bizarre to me, but okay...

---

Hmmm.. well who would you type as a more typical IEI? I thought Marilyn Monroe with her soft, passive appeal, and her tendency at work to hold up the whole set while she reflected on the broader meaning of her role was rather straightforward as IEI. At least, I see the :Ni: :Fe: with low :Se: and non-existent :Te:.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by echidna1000

Hmmm.. well who would you type as a more typical IEI? I thought Marilyn Monroe with her soft, passive appeal, and her tendency at work to hold up the whole set while she reflected on the broader meaning of her role was rather straightforward as IEI. At least, I see the :Ni: :Fe: with low :Se: and non-existent :Te:.

---

Marilyn Monroe got herself into lots of trouble because of her lack of foresight. Her affairs and so forth speak of weak Intuition. An IEI with stronger Intuition would not get herself involved in precarious situations like these, for their foresight is much better developed. They have a better awareness of future consequences. She primarily lived in the moment. It seemed like she did not understand why she ended up in all those complicated situations and broken relationships. She does seem to value :Ni: but not actually be "good" at it. So all that, besides some other things, make me find Gamma SF more likely for her. Her public role seemed rather SEE, though I am starting to find it possible she was an ESI with weak :Ne: and :Te: and :Ni: HA.

Anyhow, there'll always be disagreements on the types of celebrities... This is just my perspective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cassandra

Marilyn Monroe got herself into lots of trouble because of her lack of foresight. Her affairs and so forth speak of weak Intuition. An IEI with stronger Intuition would not get herself involved in precarious situations like these, for their foresight is much better developed. They have a better awareness of future consequences. She primarily lived in the moment. It seemed like she did not understand why she ended up in all those complicated situations and broken relationships. She does seem to value :Ni: but not actually be "good" at it. So all that, besides some other things, make me find Gamma SF more likely for her. Her public role seemed rather SEE, though I am starting to find it possible she was an ESI with weak :Ne: and :Te: and :Ni: HA.

Anyhow, there'll always be disagreements on the types of celebrities... This is just my perspective.

---

I mean, her problems were more to do with an emotional instability and low self-esteem than to do with being a naturally impulsive or assertive character. She turned to alcohol and drugs to make herself feel better when used by JFK, for instance. Furthermore, it is notable that she was frequently attracted to either more assertive men, or older, father figures. She very much saw love where the man was the decisive party. This is quite consistent with an unhealthy IEI, rather than an overly-reckless SEE or other :Se: ego.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...-paranoia.html

It is also unusual for an ESI, with such an emphasis on valued :Fi: to go through multiple failed marriages and affairs. While Marilyn was :Fi: savvy, she did not emphasise carefully selecting a life partner and holding onto them, instead finding people who made her feel more secure and better about herself. Indeed, Marilyn had a very weak sense of identity and needed external validation from the admiration and respect of people.

I could see EIE making sense as an alternative to IEI for Marilyn, but I'd be very surprised to see her go from Beta NF to Gamma SF.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by echidna1000

Glad the World Socionics Society test and descriptions are going down well!

---

I didn't take the test again since I have only gotten IEI on it every time I took it but maybe I should. It seems the questions are now different? Before it was more clear cut and easy for someone not into socionics to choose between one thing or another. This test seems to have a very alpha bias to it. No offense in that. :) I watched as my 3 siblings took it but I did not offer any explanations of the IEs and they know very little of socionics.

When my EII sister took it she got LII (no possible way she is). When my ESE sister took it she got EIE (she is textbook ESE) and my IEI brother got ILE (which was funny to all of us). Something strange happened when my EII sister took it so I don't' know if it is a glitch but she didn't get the same amount of questions that the others did the first time. I had her take it again and she got EII. I helped her a bit the second time by explaining but I didn't tell her what to choose. I think they all had some trouble deciding on some of the questions.

Anyway they are packing up to leave and I didn't have much time to really go through and explain to help them out when they were unsure of what fit best. I will take it for myself later and if I get a different result that IEI I will let you know. I just wanted to give some feedback.

Oh and I see no problem with Marilyn as an IEI because I have read many biographies since I was like 13 years old written by people close to her and some who didn't know her at all. I think the issue people don't understand is that she turned to drugs and alcohol because she felt like a misunderstood alien in a time period where her particular way of processing information was not valued by the culture she was part of.

You can have foresight and still make poor decisions knowing that some things are doomed from the start. I think anyone with little life experience may have trouble seeing this from a sheltered perspective. No offense to Cass here but I feel her view is similar to most when it comes to Marilyn and they are just wrong. This isn't even about sociotype for me. It is something that goes deeper and I can empathize with Marilyn in many ways. Some people are born into a good situation and others have to work with the cards they are dealt.

She had to become a sex idol to fulfill her dreams so it may have looked like it came easy for her, to those who didn't understand that she was in a constant state of turmoil. Throw enneagram and instincts into it and it all makes sense. She was definitely sx first and most likely sp second. I got to know her through other people's eyes but some of those people were the ones she confided in most. I think if anyone is really interested in who she was > public image they should read several biographies and then think about her type again.

Edit: @echidna1000

My ESE sister got ILE too! Not EIE. :shock: I got it confused. Maybe my family imagines themselves a bunch of geniuses. lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cassandra

Marilyn Monroe got herself into lots of trouble because of her lack of foresight. Her affairs and so forth speak of weak Intuition. An IEI with stronger Intuition would not get herself involved in precarious situations like these, for their foresight is much better developed. They have a better awareness of future consequences. She primarily lived in the moment. It seemed like she did not understand why she ended up in all those complicated situations and broken relationships. She does seem to value :Ni: but not actually be "good" at it. So all that, besides some other things, make me find Gamma SF more likely for her. Her public role seemed rather SEE, though I am starting to find it possible she was an ESI with weak :Ne: and :Te: and :Ni: HA.

Anyhow, there'll always be disagreements on the types of celebrities... This is just my perspective.

---

I mean, her problems were more to do with an emotional instability and low self-esteem than to do with being a naturally impulsive or assertive character. She turned to alcohol and drugs to make herself feel better when used by JFK, for instance. Furthermore, it is notable that she was frequently attracted to either more assertive men, or older, father figures. She very much saw love where the man was the decisive party. This is quite consistent with an unhealthy IEI, rather than an overly-reckless SEE or other :Se: ego.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...-paranoia.html

It is also unusual for an ESI, with such an emphasis on valued :Fi: to go through multiple failed marriages and affairs. While Marilyn was :Fi: savvy, she did not emphasise carefully selecting a life partner and holding onto them, instead finding people who made her feel more secure and better about herself. Indeed, Marilyn had a very weak sense of identity and needed external validation from the admiration and respect of people. This is the sort of neuroticism which might develop in Beta NFs who are reliant on strong :Se: and :Ti: in others. It's not what one would expect from a Gamma SF which is much more dominant with people and straightforward in who they like and who they don't, who is much less inclined to doubtful navel-gazing, and readily takes charge in their relations. Their 'impulsiveness' is more to do with making quick, perhaps superficial decisions without much thought. For Marilyn, it was a mix of a complete lack of practicality and the paralysis of self-doubt.

I could see EIE making sense as an alternative to IEI for Marilyn, but I'd be very surprised to see her go from Beta NF to Gamma SF.

★ iPsyght thinks that you are: Intuitive Ethical Energiser (IEE) ★


Nom nom nom surprise surprise, and I like the way this test was made :love2:

https://m.popkey.co/7253dd/v4Xlg.gif

@User Name can you give it a try?

Everyone should take this test, really.

@callech

This is a test where it's easy to choose wrong answers as on many questions for myself there was no clear choice. Even on the first page of the test I had to click a few whatever answers to carry on to the next page where unfortunately I had to do the same...

My result is LSE :-)

This is a first!

Quote:

---

iPsyght thinks that you are: Intuitive Ethical Integrator (IEI)

---

The questions in the test are divided clear enough. For the sake of unneeded certainty I took it 2 times and got similar results. :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bgdjf

maybe it's because i'm tired but the wording is a bit rough on some questions and on a few i had to just pick one because either/neither option was more me, but in the end it gave a typical result for me.

.

---

Same. It didn't help that I knew what they were asking for. But I got ESI.

iPsyght thinks that you are: Intuitive Logical Energiser (ILE)

Gotta respect AI.

@Number 9 large

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cassandra

@Number 9 large

---

Attachment 10786

Got LII again. I always get LII when I do a test.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Number 9 large

Attachment 10786

Got LII again. I always get LII when I do a test.

---

Reminds me of @soulclap who is LSI-Ti and always gets LII in tests, too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chae

@User Name can you give it a try?

---

Interesting test. I got ILI. In the first part (Si/Ne vs Ni/Se) my preference toward Ni/Se was quite strong, while in the second part (Ti/Fe vs Fi/Te) it was balanced, more or less, but it came out to be Fi/Te > Ti/Fe. That's the way I understand the test, at least. I hope I'm getting it right!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cassandra

Reminds me of @soulclap who is LSI-Ti and always gets LII in tests, too.

---

It's funny cuz I got 7/15 7/15 A/B distribution the first two times. Only in the last 6 questions did I get A every single time.
So if I had changed one answer in the first two times, I might've gotten a completely different type. That's why these tests don't work properly, or socionics for that matter. Because most people aren't one-sided towards S/N, T/F, I/E, J/P as socionics tries to claim people are.

The last test I did on sociotype.com got me this: (couple of weeks ago)

Attachment 10787

As you see the types are very close to eachother, but according to the theory these type differ a lot from eachother. If the theory were to make sense I would get LII (100%) and then all the other types at least lower than say 80%, so there would be a clear distinction between type.

Besides @Cassandra I still don't know why you think I'm using extraverted sensing a lot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aylen

Edit: @echidna1000

My ESE sister got ILE too! Not EIE. :shock: I got it confused. Maybe my family imagines themselves a bunch of geniuses. lol

---

Very interesting! that suggests it went right all the way until the last page.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Number 9 large

It's funny cuz I got 7/15 7/15 A/B distribution the first two times. Only in the last 6 questions did I get A every single time.
So if I had changed one answer in the first two times, I might've gotten a completely different type. That's why these tests don't work properly, or socionics for that matter. Because most people aren't one-sided towards S/N, T/F, I/E, J/P as socionics tries to claim people are.

The last test I did on sociotype.com got me this: (couple of weeks ago)

Attachment 10787

As you see the types are very close to eachother, but according to the theory these type differ a lot from eachother. If the theory were to make sense I would get LII (100%) and then all the other types at least lower than say 80%, so there would be a clear distinction between type.

Besides @Cassandra I still don't know why you think I'm using extraverted sensing a lot.

---

The test wasn't testing to see if you were S/N, T/F, I/E or J/P. It would actually be very difficult to confuse LII with ILI in my test.

That's MBTI. Still, I take your point. There are better ways to make tests.

@Number 9 large maybe you are LII after all? (Any chance?)

@happytobestraining

iPsyght thinks that you are: Intuitive Logical Integrator (ILI)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by User Name

Interesting test. I got ILI. In the first part (Si/Ne vs Ni/Se) my preference toward Ni/Se was quite strong, while in the second part (Ti/Fe vs Fi/Te) it was balanced, more or less, but it came out to be Fi/Te > Ti/Fe. That's the way I understand the test, at least. I hope I'm getting it right!

---

That's pretty much exactly how mine turned out. The first page strongly favored Ni/Se, the second page was much more balanced, with the difference of one question affecting the balance between ILI and LSI. Took it twice, got ILI, then LSI with only answering one or two questions differently.

I thought there really needed to be a neutral answer because I really wanted to say "neither one" on a few too many of those questions. I didn't like the binary nature of this test at all, especially with its shortness, makes it quite unstable imo. I wouldn't use this for typing at all - too easy to get a variety of types from minor input differences - iow each question is weighed too heavily, and the lack of a neutral answer forces a person into making a choice between two things of which neither one applies far too often.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Number 9 large

It's funny cuz I got 7/15 7/15 A/B distribution the first two times. Only in the last 6 questions did I get A every single time.
So if I had changed one answer in the first two times, I might've gotten a completely different type. That's why these tests don't work properly.

---

Yes, that's the problem I saw with the test too. One question can make a huge difference in the result and the binary choices without a 3rd neutral option make that even worse. A test that I like a lot better is SubTs test. It's also short and simple, but there's a neutral option for when neither choice fits and it has much higher stability. But, I checked and his link isn't working right now. @Subteigh ? Did you take your test down?

Neutral answers can be problematic, because some people will choose that option too often to the point that the result will be grossly inaccurate.

So generally, I think it is better that option doesn't exist, or it should be limited to specific questions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by squark

Yes, that's the problem I saw with the test too. One question can make a huge difference in the result and the binary choices without a 3rd neutral option make that even worse. A test that I like a lot better is SubTs test. It's also short and simple, but there's a neutral option for when neither choice fits and it has much higher stability. But, I checked and his link isn't working right now. @Subteigh ? Did you take your test down?

---

Okcupid/helloquizzy deleted all their tests a few months ago. I've put up the test somewhere else, but I still need to get round to polishing off the results pages. Unfortunately the website I used does not allow five options for a question, which means I would not be able to have a neutral option. The website also does not give result percentages for each type, which is another loss compared to before. But I intend to reupload this version of the test at least as a stopgap measure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cassandra

Neutral answers can be problematic, because some people will choose that option too often to the point that the result will be grossly inaccurate.

So generally, I think it is better that option doesn't exist, or it should be limited to specific questions.

---

I disagree. It's better that the choices that are more obvious and clear be weighted more heavily, which is what happens when you allow a neutral choice. Otherwise you're weighing each response equally, and with a test as short as this one, that's a huge problem. It makes the results too easy to swing in very different directions.

The point of a test is for those who DONT know their type, so if it works for those who do know it, it doesn't say anything useful (tests are easy to game anyway) - whenever you take a test already knowing your type, taking it from the standpoint of someone who doesn't know socionics is the best approach (that's who it's meant for after all.) When a person who knows socionics takes a test there's a little too much confirmation bias going on for a lot of people. They know what the question is asking, and so answer the way that's "right" for their self-typing. A test is only useful if it can accurately type those who don't know socionics. This test fails on that. And it fails on any kind of stability measure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by squark

I disagree. It's better that the choices that are more obvious and clear be weighted more heavily, which is what happens when you allow a neutral choice. Otherwise you're weighing each response equally, and with a test as short as this one, that's a huge problem. It makes the results too easy to swing in very different directions.

The point of a test is for those who DONT know their type, so if it works for those who do know it, it doesn't say anything useful (tests are easy to game anyway) - whenever you take a test already knowing your type, taking it from the standpoint of someone who doesn't know socionics is the best approach (that's who it's meant for after all.) When a person who knows socionics takes a test there's a little too much confirmation bias going on for a lot of people. They know what the question is asking, and so answer the way that's "right" for their self-typing. A test is only useful if it can accurately type those who don't know socionics. This test fails on that. And it fails on any kind of stability measure.

---

Knowing about your type while taking a test is not necessarily an argument for neutral options... this is a problem that exists universally for any kind of system of this sort. Once you have typed yourself, there'll be a bias. And if you cannot be honest with yourself (or lack self-awareness), then you'll definitely get the result you want to get. But sure, some tests are better at circumventing that than others. I don't think this test was too bad at doing so, but an improvement could be mixing up the things it is asking for, so that not each page is focused on one value set. And making sure that each question is of appropriate value. If each aspect is weighed the same and the questions are sensible, then this is totally legitimate. You don't need to weigh each question or set of questions differently be default; it really depends on how the test is set up as a whole.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cassandra

Knowing about your type while taking a test is not necessarily an argument for neutral options... this is a problem that exists universally for any kind of system of this sort. Once you have typed yourself, there'll be a bias. But sure, some tests are better at circumventing that than others. I don't think this test was too bad at doing so, but an improvement could be mixing up the things it is asking for, so that not each page is focused on one value set. And making sure that each question is of appropriate value. If each aspect is weighed the same and the questions are sensible, then this is totally legitimate. You don't need to weigh each question or set of questions differently be default; it really depends on how the test is set up as a whole.

---

The argument for neutral options was to increase the stability of the test (making it harder to swing in widely different directions)

For example, someone is very sure on one thing about themself, it's really clear, they know it to be true -- this should be weighed more heavily than an answer they are very unsure about and could go either way on. A neutral option allows you to weigh their input based on surety of response.

With a short test and every answer weighed the same, every unsure answer gets the same weight as each sure answer, and if there are multiple questions they are very unsure on they could be wildly misstyped. One possible solution is to add a lot more questions, so that helps balance things out. Another is to add a neutral option. A third option is to add a sliding scale. All would improve the test in some way.

The point about confirmation bias is that people who have self-typed and are familiar with socionics getting their "correct" type on a test may mean nothing whatsoever for that test's validity.

@squark: I agree that the test might not be completely accurate due to its limited number of questions or, as you mentioned, the lack of a neutral answer. But I must say it was really helpful. I'm quite sure I'm an ILI, but I always test as LII. The point is that my :Ti: is very strong and, since other tests ask questions only about the preference between two functions (e.g. :Ti: vs :Te:) or the level of preference toward one function (e.g. rate this statement about :Ni: from 1 to 5, likert scale), when one test asks to rate a :Ti: statement, I'll always answer with either a 4 or a 5, causing my :Ti: to be extremely strong and, therefore, to get typed as LII. On the other hand, since this test takes into consideration not one, but two functions, it helps to understand better how a pair of IEs works together. In this case I showed a preference towards :Ni:/:Se: and :Te:/:Fi:, clearly testing as ILI, which now I hardly suspect to be my true type. That's why I like the test and I would recommend to use it for typing purposes. :content:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by User Name

@squark: I agree that the test might not be completely accurate due to its limited number of questions or, as you mentioned, the lack of a neutral answer. But I must say it was really helpful. I'm quite sure I'm an ILI, but I always test as LII. The point is that my :Ti: is very strong and, since other tests ask questions only about the preference between two functions (e.g. :Ti: vs :Te:) or the level of preference toward one function (e.g. rate this statement about :Ni: from 1 to 5, likert scale), when one test asks to rate a :Ti: statement, I'll always answer with either a 4 or a 5, causing my :Ti: to be extremely strong and, therefore, to get typed as LII. On the other hand, since this test takes into consideration not one, but two functions, it helps to understand better how a pair of IEs works together. In this case I showed a preference towards :Ni:/:Se: and :Te:/:Fi:, clearly testing as ILI, which now I hardly suspect to be my true type. That's why I like the test and I would recommend to use it for typing purposes. :content:

---

If your answers were nearly balanced like you said, and you changed even one of your answers on the second section you would have typed as LSI instead (or another Ti/Fe type.) So, you'd have to be quite sure every question was right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cassandra

@happytobestraining

---

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I plan to take it after work.

it was a bad test for someone who already knows about socionics and cognitive functions. sociotype.com's test is much better in that sense. it typed me as ILI though, which doesn't seem to be the case.