hey guys, what's my type?

[Creepy-Cyclops]

I was about to address this. You got it. =D

Your welcome :-)

EDIT: As the debate goes on, your third highighted sentence in your post is something more common in ENFp's than ENFj's. IE: If this is relevant to you, ENFj's have no problems undertaking very difficult tasks and projects and working long unsociable hours. For ENFp's this sort of thing can be something which requires a little more discipline. Just thought i'd say.

[JuJu]

"You need commitment so that I don't waste time"? -thePirate

Did Pirate really say this, or was this Brilliand summing up what he/she took out the quote? Besides, how can that advice only come from an ENFj? Maybe it's coming from someone who's had personal experience with a lack of commitment, which some ENFp's can have (and also ISTp's) Just a thought.

Ah, okay. Thanks, Cyclops.

Still, regarding his response to BulletsandDoves and Expat, I stand by ENFj for the reasons I mentioned.

Peace.

[Phaedrus]

Back to the indisputable facts. We have two test results: ESTP and INFP, both indicating an irrational type as the most likely, and on top of that we have thePirate's own identification with irrationality as more likely than rationality in the four dichotomies. That is a big problem for the proponents of the ENFj hypothesis, because if that hypothesis is true, then thePirate must not only be slightly deluded at the moment about the J/P scale, but have actually scored no better than 1 out of 4 on one test and 2 out of 4 correct dichotomies on a second test.

Even if we admit that MBTI tests do not always give us the correct type in Socionics, they do it quite often, and such a totally incorrect test result as ESTP would be extremely unlikely if ENFj is indeed thePirate's correct type. Unless, of course, you guys want to suggest that thePirate is suffering from a delusion about what kind of person he really is. The ENFp hypothesis is a much better fit with the test data, no matter how you interpret it.

So, at the moment ENFj is undoubtly at least a 3 to 1 underdog, objectively speaking.

[Slacker]

Test results of ESTp and INFp would point toward beta, and valuing of Fe, Ni, Se, and Ti.

[Brilliand]

Test results of ESTp and INFp would point toward beta, and valuing of Fe, Ni, Se, and Ti.

That would be true for Socionics tests, but MBTI test results are dichotomy-based, aren't they?

[Phaedrus]

Test results of ESTp and INFp would point toward beta, and valuing of Fe, Ni, Se, and Ti.

No, absolutely not. These test results have nothing to do with the quadras, and they have nothing to do with the functions. The only thing that is relevant here are the four dichotomies.

[Slacker]

That would be true for Socionics tests, but MBTI test results are dichotomy-based, aren't they?

Well yeah but I like messing with Phaedrus.

I personally don't think MBTI tests are particularly useful IRT Socionics.

[Phaedrus]

That would be true for Socionics tests, but MBTI test results are dichotomy-based, aren't they?

Yes, and so are most Socionics tests.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

I personally don't think MBTI tests are particularly useful IRT Socionics.

I disagree, IME, MBTI and it's tests are very useful indicators of the socionic types, just not of the socionics functions.

[Phaedrus]

Well yeah but I like messing with Phaedrus.

I personally don't think MBTI tests are particularly useful IRT Socionics.

By exhibiting this idiotic behaviour you are messing with the minds of others. Since I know that you are bluffing and don't know what you are talking about, I am immune to your bullshit, but you are clearly misleading those who are new to the game.

[Slacker]

I disagree, IME, MBTI and it's tests are very useful indicators of the socionic types, just not of the socionics functions.

Socionics types are based on functional preference. Which is why IMO MBTI tests aren't very useful. If it doesn't use functions, it isn't a test I find useful.

[Slacker]

you are clearly misleading those who are new to the game.

Oh, the irony.

[Phaedrus]

Socionics types are based on functional preference. Which is why IMO MBTI tests aren't very useful. If it doesn't use functions, it isn't a test I find useful.

Enough of this total crap. Socionics test are also based on the same four dichotomies. Open a book on Socionics, read an article on the Internet and take a look for yourself. You are spreading misinformation here, and that is something you should stop doing immediately. Most test in Soionics are based on the four scales.

[Phaedrus]

Oh, the irony.

Sorry, but there is no irony here.

[Slacker]

You are spreading misinformation here, and that is something you should stop doing immediately.

More irony. Love it.

[Slacker]

Hey, I read an article!

http://socionist.blogspot.com/2007/0...s-to-make.html

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Socionics types are based on functional preference. Which is why IMO MBTI tests aren't very useful. If it doesn't use functions, it isn't a test I find useful.

Why is a test that doesnt use functions not useful?

MBTI tests are useful, because they describe the same type of people. It's a general type being described, not a functional analysis. Many people have the same MBTI and socionics type. Infact, extroverts are usually always the same, and introverts can often have the same type on both systems also.

Mmm.. in regards to socionoics tests being based on functional preference, I'd say some are, but some aren't, you can also get a mixture of functions and dichotomy preferences.

[Slacker]

MBTI tests are useful, because they describe the same type of people. It's a general type being described, not a functional analysis. Many people have the same MBTI and socionics type. Infact, extroverts are usually always the same, and introverts can often have the same type on both systems also.

I disagree with this too. As I was looking for the above blog entry from Rick's blog, I happened to see this one you might like to read:

http://socionist.blogspot.com/2007/1...rs-briggs.html

[thePirate]

Yeah, I don't find the MBTI test as useful either(that's why I didn't display my results in the first post). IMO, the test is perception based, and depending on mood/whatever, that could affect the test greatly, as a different set of memories become readily available.

Not saying it has no validity whatsoever, but minimal if anything. Not a solid basis for arguement on any count.

[Phaedrus]

I disagree with this too. As I was looking for the above blog entry from Rick's blog, I happened to see this one you might like to read:

http://socionist.blogspot.com/2007/1...rs-briggs.html

Well, if that is the only article you have read, I can understand why you are so deluded. Maybe you could read Filatova's book, or maybe take a look at Lytov's articles, or maybe check out Ganin's site, or maybe one of the Russian ones?

You are so incredibably ignorant about that basics of Socionics that it must be some sort of record. I know that ENFps are extremely difficult to persuade to actually open a book or do some serious study of any kind, but you are in a league of your own in that regard. I honestly hope that people are not as lazy and narrow-minded as you are, because then there is no hope for this forum.

[Slacker]

narrow-minded as you are, because then there is no hope for this forum.

Yet More Irony!!

[Creepy-Cyclops]

I disagree with this too. As I was looking for the above blog entry from Rick's blog, I happened to see this one you might like to read:

http://socionist.blogspot.com/2007/1...rs-briggs.html

Well, for instance, I identify with the same type descriptions on MBTI and Socionics, as do many others, so I think there is some relevance to the type descriptions being valid, like I say the functional analysis will be different, of course.

In regards to the article, it's interesting, and I can see where your coming from, but at the end of the day it's only one persons take.

I think its safe to say in general that socionic extroverts are more outgoing, certainly in some ways, because having a dominant extroverted function tends to focus you on whats going on externally.

In regards to the actual types of those people on the link, that Rick used for his example(s), I think the anonymous poster made a valid point.

[Phaedrus]

Yeah, I don't find the MBTI test as useful either(that's why I didn't display my results in the first post). IMO, the test is perception based, and depending on mood/whatever, that could affect the test greatly, as a different set of memories become readily available.

Not saying it has no validity whatsoever, but minimal if anything. Not a solid basis for arguement on any count.

You must understand that if you are ENFj (or ENFp) you have answered those tests incorrectly. Maybe you are neither ENFj nor ENFp, but at least we have strong evidence to support the view that you are an irrational type in Soionics.

You are now in a position (or at least should be if you have done your homework) to determine once and for all if you are an irrational or a rational type. Which is it? Don't you think it's time that you tell us if you are a J or a P type? You cannot be an ENFj unless you identify with J (rational) behaviour at least as much as you identify with P (irrational behaviour.

[Brilliand]

You must understand that if you are ENFj (or ENFp) you have answered those tests incorrectly. Maybe you are neither ENFj nor ENFp, but at least we have strong evidence to support the view that you are an irrational type in Soionics.

It isn't his fault the test messed up... Tests are supposed to turn honest answers into correct typings, and a good test will see through the honest answers to the reasons behind them.

[Phaedrus]

It isn't his fault the test messed up...

The tests are not messed up. They always give you your correct type in Soionics if you answer them correctly. The only thing that might be messed up is your own perception and understanding of yourself.

Tests are supposed to turn honest answers into correct typings, and a good test will see through the honest answers to the reasons behind them.

The reasons are irrelevant as long as the result succeeds in doing what it is supposed to do -- indicate your correct type. And they always do that if you answer them honestly and with a correct understanding of yourself as a person. If you don't have a correct understanding of yourself, we cannot trust you to present us with correct information upon which to try to type you. So, you really just have to describe yourself accurately and objectively without prejudices.

[Brilliand]

The reasons are irrelevant as long as the result succeeds in doing what it is supposed to do -- indicate your correct type. And they always do that if you answer them honestly and with a correct understanding of yourself as a person. If you don't have a correct understanding of yourself, we cannot trust you to present us with correct information upon which to try to type you. So, you really just have to describe yourself accurately and objectively without prejudices.

The purpose of the test is to give you a correct understanding of yourself. And they do ask about behaviors - your behaviors do not necessarily match your type's usual behaviors. Also, sometimes a test-taker has a different understanding of the rules than the test-maker has, and that is not the test-taker's fault - ideally, the test should work around this.

Surely you can accept that the tests themselves are not perfect?

[Phaedrus]

The purpose of the test is to give you a correct understanding of yourself.

No. The purpose of the test is to determine your correct type. The test is only a typing method, it's an instrument. You get a correct understanding of yourself by reading the corresponding type description, and so on.

And they do ask about behaviors - your behaviors do not necessarily match your type's usual behaviors.

Yes, it necessarily does match your type's usual behaviours to a significant degree if you are correctly typed.

Also, sometimes a test-taker has a different understanding of the rules than the test-maker has, and that is not the test-taker's fault.

Yes, it is the test-taker's fault. If you don't understand the rules of the game, you should not take the test.

Surely you can accept that the tests themselves are not perfect?

Of course they are not perfect, but that is irrelevant here. You should always get the correct result anyway, because you should not be so ignorant as the average person who takes such a test. You are an informed socionist, and you should always get the correct type by taking an MBTI test. If you don't, you are simply mistyped or deluded.

[thePirate]

Of course they are not perfect, but that is irrelevant here. You should always get the correct result anyway, because you should not be so ignorant as the average person who takes such a test. You are an informed socionist, and you should always get the correct type by taking an MBTI test. If you don't, you are simply mistyped or deluded.

Taking a test to determine type in itself is flawed. I mean, there's only a limited amount of options, and depending on the situation, the actions taken can be drastically different. It seems there's no clear cut way, so in a sense the taker is forced to see a certain situation in which to respond. This situation may or not be a representative of the whole(maybe to an extent). That was my experience with it, in any case.

Again, with the J/P line, its hard to make that distinction, if I knew which I gravitated towards, I wouldn't have made this thread, LOL.

[Brilliand]

Taking a test to determine type in itself is flawed.

I'd say a test can become arbitrarily close to perfection. The concept of a personality test is not bad - it just hasn't been done well yet.

I'd say rational - you seem to have a definite idea of how things should be.

[Phaedrus]

Taking a test to determine type in itself is flawed. I mean, there's only a limited amount of options, and depending on the situation, the actions taken can be drastically different. It seems there's no clear cut way, so in a sense the taker is forced to see a certain situation in which to respond. This situation may or not be a representative of the whole(maybe to an extent). That was my experience with it, in any case.

You can determine which of the four dimensions (dichotomies, scales) apply to you by reading about them (for example in Lytov's introduction to Socionics in which he also explains exactly which test questions are designed to determine your J/P, your T/F, your E/I, and your S/N), you can take a short test (such as for example Ganin's Turbo test), or you can take a longer test (such as Keirsey's Temperament Sorter, a standard MBTI test, or some other test based on Socionics or one of the other typologies mentioned here).

You will get the same result whatever test you use, because all those tests are designed in basically the same way, and they are all based on the same principles. All of them are based on the four dichotomies, which is both the most simple and also the most accurate single method to determine your correct type in comparison with any one of the other typing methods that you can use. But you will probably get an ever more accurate result if you combine several typing methods and get the same type result in all, or at least most, of them.

Again, with the J/P line, its hard to make that distinction, if I knew which I gravitated towards, I wouldn't have made this thread, LOL.

Not until you know which one of them captures what it is to be the person you really are you will know your correct type. You should really focus intensively on exactly this problem -- to determine once and for all if you are a rational (J) or an irrational (P) type. Here are some information material to read and reflect upon:

http://www.socionics.us/theory/rat_irr.shtml

http://www.socionics.com/articles/phenomenon.html

http://www.socionics.com/articles/irra.htm

http://www.socionics.com/main/types.htm

Rationality (Judging)

The person who has such sign, makes leveled rhythm of life in consecutive order. He subordi­nates all actions of a definite succession, decomposes everything in own definite order. He follows by a definite way, it is difficult to make him change his mind. He usually plans his actions beforehand and in each situation follows his plan or schema. He legibly imagines what will do during a day. But if it is necessary to rebuilt under the the inflected conditions and cir­cumstances he straines, making a lot of efforts, for is disturbed the measure of actions. There­fore it often happens, that the circumstances have already changed but the person prolongs to think and to act according to the pre-positioned plan, that results him in due course in blind corner. It is possible to call it as peculiar "bit seizure".

He will not do several acts synchronously, he works without changing the marked plan, there­fore he starts new operation only after completion the previous one, othervise it beats him out from a track. He stands ostinately on his own, does not revise his stands, tends to be the a master of a position. He holds on to principles, established rules and norms, respects traditions and customs. He follows his own understanding in everything, if he has already judgement on the person, perceives him like he thinks about him, instead of perceiving him according to his behavior. The words: "The Person in a case" are about the rational person.

He sets the operating instructions, does not search for new methods and alternatives, does not charge himself with new situations, gives advantage to the old tested ways, for he is a little conservative.

He insists on timeliness beginning of implementation of operation, he wants the operation to be carried out methodically, sequentially. He abides the order, he is punctual, accurate, pre­cise and hopes to find these qualities in others. He puts each thing on its own place and wants to see it right there. He writes down about things which should make, sometimes writes a dia­ry. He holds on to the order on the job and at home, irritates when somebody sidetracks him.

Rational rerson has his own style, which is characterized by regularity and constancy. Any unplanned variation can call rough reaction.

Irrationality (Perceiving)

Having such sign the person quickly accepts and values a situation. But he does not come into it at once, some time looks narrowly at the created conditions, only then makes a choice. He will not hurry with the conclusions: to reach something, it is necessary for him to ripen and to feel an internal jerk: "it is time". If he accepts a situation, it is easy for him to find his own place. Due to his impulsiveness and flexibility he easy tailored for nonconstant circumstances. He considers that a development of events will put everything on the places. In a desperate situation he does not loose himself and does not depend on confluences of circumstances, he easy does smoothly varying transferring and goes out of it. He demonstrates diverse alterna­tives, stages of a development of events. if it is necessary to leave from an uncomfortable situation, he acts even more quickly, and stops to be active as soon as purpose is reached.

He can hold down some situations under check. He selects at present moment the most effec­tive situation, the most optimal one and changes one plans by others if it is necessary. He starts to do synchronously several matters, does them simultaneously, begining with one mat­ter and switching over to the other, successfully completing everything. As a rule he acts ac­cording to a situation and does not overstrain himself with the plans and terms of implemen­tation of operations. He easily goes on mutual concessions.

He never prepares for any matter beforehand. never retries in operation, do everything extem­pore. He can delay with matters, sidetrack them to the last minute, relying on his inspiration, the skill to improvise, or happy case. He tries to find new, unusual methods and does not use the old ones.

The abstractions during operation do not foil. All operatings depend on his mood, and the smallest jerk becomes a source of inspiration absorbing in a matter, thus the pace of work is inflected. Having undergone defections he easily switch over to something else. Thus under­takes a great many of matters, which are even little bound among themselves.

He ignores conventional traditions, rigid systems, rules and standard routines. The necessity to hold on to the plan steadily disturbs him. He manages well with sudden and extreme situa­tions. He bents to looking for alternatives and miscellaneous approaches. At a solution of a problem he discovers multi-variant approach. He respects the order, but it is pleasant for him to convert each work into an entertainment, if the work is uninteresting it loses its sense.

The indorsement for fruitful life is everything which can bring novelty and variety. The sud­den random variations during a day promote capacity for work, for he requires a choice of operatings, probable alternatives of behavior, relationships between the people, phenomena, things. The extreme situations inspire him and if it is necessary he works with availability also in after-hour time.

If you really think that it is likely that you are either ENFj or ENFp, you should of course also compare Rick's descriptions of and as leading functions:

http://www.socionics.us/theory/be.shtml

http://www.socionics.us/theory/bi.shtml

[Creepy-Cyclops]

^ Thats the most informative post i've seen for a while.

[Brilliand]

But you will probably get an ever more accurate result if you combine several typing methods and get the same type result in all, or at least most, of them.

This is possibly an advantage of the functional typing method (over any one other method) - that it fools us into typing someone four different ways (ego, superego, superid and id), and reconciling those typings.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

This is possibly an advantage of the functional typing method (over any one other method) - that it fools us into typing someone four different ways (ego, superego, superid and id), and reconciling those typings.

It's one of many ways, and it shouldn't be excluded, or exclusive. Problem with relying in it too much here is one can misenterperit supposed actions, especially over the internet

[Phaedrus]

This is possibly an advantage of the functional typing method (over any one other method) - that it fools us into typing someone four different ways (ego, superego, superid and id), and reconciling those typings.

I'm not sure that I get your point. One big problem with the ordering of the functions into ego, superego, superid, and id is that it is based on a totally false Freudian conception of how our minds are structured. So, in a sense, we have pseudoscience built into the very core of Socionics. As we all (should) know, psychoanalysis is total crap as a theory of the mind. But we can still use a lot of the empirical observations that have been gathered through the years. In the descriptions of behaviours, attitudes, etc. many theories have something correct to say about what humans are like, but we should be very skeptical towards their theoretical explanations of the observable phenomena.

[thePirate]

In that case, its irrational. If anything, I'd have to go with INFP over ENFP.

[Phaedrus]

In that case, its irrational. If anything, I'd have to go with INFP over ENFP.

Why? Maybe I settled too soon for extraversion, but it would be really strange for an INFp to test as an ESTP. That anomaly must be explained somehow.

It is a good thing that we finally can dismiss all talk about ENFj an other rational types once and for all, but now you have to determine whether you are an extravert or an introvert. You should read everything you can about that dichotomy in order to understand which you are. It should not be too difficult really.

And no one has put forward a really strong argument against the ENFp hypothesis, which is still an extremly likely type. You can not decide which type you are by comparing the quadras, please keep that firmly in mind.

Have you compared any IEI and IEE type descriptions?

[thePirate]

Why? Maybe I settled too soon for extraversion, but it would be really strange for an INFp to test as an ESTP. That anomaly must be explained somehow.

It is a good thing that we finally can dismiss all talk about ENFj an other rational types once and for all, but now you have to determine whether you are an extravert or an introvert. You should read everything you can about that dichotomy in order to understand which you are. It should not be too difficult really.

And no one has put forward a really strong argument against the ENFp hypothesis, which is still an extremly likely type. You can not decide which type you are by comparing the quadras, please keep that firmly in mind.

Have you compared any IEI and IEE type descriptions?

All right, I'll put the quadras to the side

Yeah, I've compared them, the problem is they are very alike. I naturally attributed extroversion to 'people person' and introversion to 'loner'. However, I draw strength from internal sources rather then external. That's how I concluded INFP.

[Phaedrus]

I naturally attributed extroversion to 'people person' and introversion to 'loner'. However, I draw strength from internal sources rather then external. That's how I concluded INFP.

If that's your only reason for thinking INFp, it does not suffice. How do you know that you are drawing strength fron internal sources rather than external? What exactly do you mean by that? It is not uncommon for ENFps to misunderstand what introversion and extraversion is about. Some ENFps believe that they are introverted because they confuse intuition with introversion.

Have you actually read in depth explanations of the differences between extraversion and introversion? You can for example find Jung's Psychological Types on the Internet, where he explains it. (I won't bother to link to it for the umpteenth time, because it is so easy to find anyway, but it is a must read for everyone.) And you can find explanations on Rick's site and on a lot of other sites. But please read about it, and please understand it correctly.

[Dioklecian]

If you can show pics it could be helpful.

[Park]

LOL @ Dio - the VI expert.