-

[hellothere]

followed the new instructions, got quite strange results:

extraverted Sensing (Se) ************* (13)
unused
introverted Sensing (Si) ************************************************** *** (53.6)
excellent use
extraverted Intuiting (Ne) ***************************** (29.2)
average use
introverted Intuiting (Ni) ****** (6.4)
unused
extraverted Thinking (Te) ************************** (27)
average use
introverted Thinking (Ti) ******************************* (31)
good use
extraverted Feeling (Fe) ********************************* (33)
good use
introverted Feeling (Fi) *********************************************** (47.2)
excellent use

with the new instructions, Se & Si, Ne & Ni, Fe & Fi, Te & Ti should be quite similar, no?

spreadsheet gives the following:
ISFp
ISFj
ESTj
ESTp

[Ezra]

OKAY DEE I WILL TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION AS I'M SURE EVERYONE ELSE WILL.

[Gilly]

(ego+id+role)/(4th +5th +6th)
intj 2.54
entp 2.38
infj 1.94
istj 1.82
entj 1.81
enfp 1.81
estp 1.80
enfj 1.80
intp 1.70
istp 1.63
isfj 1.43
esfp 1.40
estj 1.34
esfj 1.33
infp 1.33
isfp 1.28

So I'm LII?

[Gilly]

Seriously?

[hellothere]

unless i accidentally changed it (which i don't think i did), it looks like the formula for the NF cell up the top is referencing a wrong cell, so it's not taking the Fi score into account

[tereg]

I took the average of the first two test results (though in those test iterations, I answered "mostly me" and "little me") from last week and used the new spreadsheet

Here are the results of the average:

Se - 16.15
Si - 40.75
Ne - 40.25
Ni - 27.05
Te - 20.4
Ti - 5.6
Fe - 47.4
Fi - 42.8

(ego+id)/(super ego+super id)
ST 0.53
NF 1.90
NT 0.63
SF 1.58

(ego+id)/(super ego+super id)
static 104.80
dynamic 135.60

(ego+id+role)/(4th +5th +6th)
intp 0.83
entp 0.47
entj 0.95
intj 0.85
istp 0.68
estj 0.99
estp 0.53
istj 0.56
esfp 1.87
esfj 1.49
isfj 0.74
isfp 1.74
infp 2.73
enfj 1.52
infj 1.15
enfp 1.49

ego/super id
static ST 0.29
dynamic ST 0.74
static NF 1.36
dynamic NF 3.42
static NT 0.52
dynamic NT 0.80
static SF 1.24
dynamic SF 1.92

S=Se+Si, N=…
S 56.90
N 67.30
T 26.00
F 90.20

EJ=Te+Fe, IJ=…
EJ 67.80
IJ 48.40
EP 56.40
IP 67.80

I=Ti+Fi+Si+Ni, E=…
I 116.20
E 124.20

And then I took the test using just "not me", "somewhat me" and "exactly me". I also got a better sense of what the questions were asking.

Here are the results:

Se - 18.6
Si - 39
Ne - 49.2
Ni - 30.6
Te - 20.6
Ti - 6.6
Fe - 39
Fi - 37.2

(ego+id)/(super ego+super id)
ST 0.54
NF 1.84
NT 0.80
SF 1.25

(ego+id)/(super ego+super id)
static 111.60
dynamic 129.20

(ego+id+role)/(4th +5th +6th)
intp 0.95
entp 0.65
entj 0.95
intj 0.96
istp 0.72
estj 0.84
estp 0.70
istj 0.53
esfp 1.82
esfj 1.14
isfj 0.62
isfp 1.42
infp 2.37
enfj 1.40
infj 1.19
enfp 1.59

ego/super id
static ST 0.36
dynamic ST 0.69
static NF 1.45
dynamic NF 2.76
static NT 0.72
dynamic NT 0.92
static SF 1.09
dynamic SF 1.40

S=Se+Si, N=…
S 57.60
N 79.80
T 27.20
F 76.20

EJ=Te+Fe, IJ=…
EJ 59.60
IJ 43.80
EP 67.80
IP 69.60

I=Ti+Fi+Si+Ni, E=…
I 113.40
E 127.40

[tereg]

What's not making sense to me at the moment is the Ne and Ni difference.

The spreadsheet is giving out the same results consistently, but there is a fairly significant gap for me between and with a clear preference for based on the CP test.

That would not be consistent with IEI's role function, would it?

The gap between and is less significant, but the spreadsheet indicates a slight preference of over .

Thoughts?

[discojoe]

This test is testacular.

[hellothere]

The spreadsheet is giving out the same results consistently, but there is a fairly significant gap for me between and with a clear preference for based on the CP test.

That would not be consistent with IEI's role function, would it?

I think part of the reason is that to obtain the results for the table with all 16 types listed, it groups together the type's two ego functions with its role function in the numerator - to me this does not make sense - why group 2 strong, valued functions (Ni and Fe for the INFp) with a weaker, unvalued function (Si for the INFp)?

[strrrng]

(ego+id)/(super ego+super id)
ST 1.22
NF 0.82
NT 1.60
SF 0.62

(ego+id)/(super ego+super id)
static 164.60
dynamic 76.00

(ego+id+role)/(4th +5th +6th)
intp 0.94
entp 2.30
entj 0.69
intj 2.36
istp 0.87
estj 0.49
estp 1.94
istj 1.74
esfp 1.14
esfj 0.46
isfj 1.18
isfp 0.33
infp 0.34
enfj 0.64
infj 1.46
enfp 1.26

ego/super id
static ST 3.11
dynamic ST 0.60
static NF 1.66
dynamic NF 0.32
static NT 5.40
dynamic NT 0.78
static SF 1.28
dynamic SF 0.19

S=Se+Si, N=…
S 51.40
N 67.40
T 80.80
F 41.00

EJ=Te+Fe, IJ=…
EJ 38.00
IJ 83.80
EP 80.80
IP 38.00

I=Ti+Fi+Si+Ni, E=…
I 121.80
E 118.80

can't figure out why I was so close on the E/I dimension....cause I'm not

[strrrng]

dee, I am sure of one thing: my temperament, which is IP. I've taken that test many times before, and thus have convoluted my perception of certain functions. Plus, those questions are geared to mbti, giving different interpretations of different questions.

So, I don't know why I posted the results. I've withdrawn from all tests and subjective ideas, relying on wikisocion for the finishing touches on the fundamental, factual understanding of socionics in order to develop my own ideas, which consist of a mathematical model for interaction within and between "psychic maps". I will post some stuff for feedback in the future.

I'm INTp. IJ's are boring.

[strrrng]

yeah, that makes sense. In regards to determining one's own, or someone else's type, I think I have determined a very reliable method, based on my experience. Before, I would read various things, pick certain elements from different areas, and ended up confusing my type because I shared so many behavioral and general characteristics. So, my method consists of 3 steps, the 3rd not being that important. First is finding temperament (Phaedrus's suggestion, which allowed me to walk down the right road). Once you have found that, then you look at strong and/or valued functions. Once you have that, you can match up with quadra values, but it's not necessary. This has proven the most valid and reliable way for me. I don't rely on the tests anymore, but empirical data. I believe that when observing people, intuition is not enough.

[Dee]

...

[Dee]

...

[hellothere]

which is a strange result... have a look at this formula (for SiFe, but I think they're all like that):

=(C13-E2)*(C13-E2)/4+(C18-E3)*(C18/E3)/4+(C15-E4)*(C15-E4)/4+(C16-E5)*(C16-E5)/4+(C14-E6)*(C14-E6)/4+(C17-E7)*(C17-E7)/4+(C12-E8)*(C12-E8)/4+(C19-E9)*(C19-E9)/4

are you meant to be dividing there, or should you be subtracting, like in all the other elements of the formula?

[Dee]

...

[hellothere]

so lower score = more likely?

and I can't download the file, it says no shared files or folders... or something

[hellothere]

Test 1:
NiFe 294.9
SeFi 344.4
TiSe 398.1
NiTe 422.3
FiSe 452.2
SeTi 452.9
FeNi 453.4
TeNi 463.1
TiNe 464.9
SiFe 500.3
FeSi 508.6
TeSi 518.3
FiNe 519
NeFi 547.7
SiTe 627.8
NeTi 656.1

Test 2: (though the majority of my answers were 3 or 2)
ari j 10
ari p 13
dem j 9
dem p 13

alpha j (duals) 4
gamma j 5
alpha p 5
gamma p 8
beta j 5
delta j 5
beta p 5
delta p 8

sta sf 5
dyn sf 3
sta nt 6
dyn nt 8
sta st 4
dyn st 6
sta nf 7
dyn nf 6


so how do you interpret these?

[hellothere]

hmm interesting results indeed