Could this be used for a test

[Angel von Himmel]

My opinion: too vague a method to be effectual.

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[snegledmaca]

1) behavior

2) emotion

3) invention

4) body

IxFp

[Kim]

1) behaviour

2) emotion (although I'm not sure how you see these two relating)

3) invention

4) danger

ENFp

[vague]

[Slacker]

behavior, emotion, invention, body

[FDG]

behaviour

procedure

action

danger


ENTj

[Catholic Schoolboy]

behaviour

emotion

invention

body

INTp that feels like shit.

[UDP]

I
N
T
j


you figure it out.

[tempus]

The 4th question is problematic. Ni is about foresight and cause-and-effect relationships. Sensing danger is but a limited aspect of Ni.

[Creepy-pokeball]

Theyre all related and thus not choosable for me =/ like order and baheavior... theyre interrelated :x

[Creepy-]

It is very vague... I'm going to do my best to go on the words and not the functions they imply.

1) order v behaviour (not entirely sure, though)

2) procedure v emotion

3) invention v action

4) danger v body

4>2>1>3

Intuitive-Ethical Intratim

But I think it's really too vague to use as a tool just yet.

edit: Perhaps I should mention I picked order only because I eliminated behaviour?

[Park]

1) order (not quite certain about this one)

2) procedure

3) action (for just a little, since to me it's closely related to invention)

4) body

ISTp

[Raver]

I like this test, if only more options were available horizontally and vertically then it could be used for a test widespread.

1) behaviour

2) emotion

3) invention

4) body

ENFP.

[Cone]

1) behavior

2) procedure

3) action

4) danger

[Hugo]

This thing doesn't work.

Nevermind.

[Raver]

This thing doesn't work.

Nevermind.

It could work, if you just add in more options. Like compare 3 instead of 2 should fill in some gaps. Also, add in more areas of options to choose from instead of 4 put like 6. If you work out what fits in where, it could be an awesome test. Don't give up so easily, I see potential in this test you've made.

[Hugo]

Don't worry, I've made much better tests than this before.

[CuriousSoul]

Which one do you lean more easily towards for each:

1) order v behaviour

2) procedure v emotion

3) invention v action

4) danger v body



Also state you type.

I had bookmarked this test ages ago...
Time to review and deconstruct this test.
The most plausible intented meanings:

1) order (Ti) v behaviour (Fi)

2) procedure (Te) v emotion (Fe)

3) invention (Ne) v action (Se)

4) danger (Ni) v body (Si)

At least Herzy and Cone got their types "right".
According to this test FDG could be ENTJ - what I actually think he most likely is...

Anyway, do you think this approach could be refined?
Hugo/Blake had many good ideas - and I think some of his tests could have potential for further development.

[aestrivex]

Which one do you lean more easily towards for each:

1) order v behaviour

2) procedure v emotion

3) invention v action

4) danger v body



Also state you type.

I had bookmarked this test ages ago...
Time to review and deconstruct this test.
The most plausible intented meanings:

1) order (Ti) v behaviour (Fi)

2) procedure (Te) v emotion (Fe)

3) invention (Ne) v action (Se)

4) danger (Ni) v body (Si)

At least Herzy and Cone got their types "right".
According to this test FDG could be ENTJ - what I actually think he most likely is...

Anyway, do you think this approach could be refined?
Hugo/Blake had many good ideas - and I think some of his tests could have potential for further development.

yeah, you're definitely ESFj.

[Exodus]

Which one do you lean more easily towards for each:

1) order v behaviour

2) procedure v emotion

3) invention v action

4) danger v body



Also state you type.

I had bookmarked this test ages ago...
Time to review and deconstruct this test.
The most plausible intented meanings:

1) order (Ti) v behaviour (Fi)

2) procedure (Te) v emotion (Fe)

3) invention (Ne) v action (Se)

4) danger (Ni) v body (Si)

At least Herzy and Cone got their types "right".
According to this test FDG could be ENTJ - what I actually think he most likely is...

Anyway, do you think this approach could be refined?
Hugo/Blake had many good ideas - and I think some of his tests could have potential for further development.

This is pretty similar to the inventory test thing on socionics.com, except focusing on functional preferences. It's an interesting idea, but I'm sure you could come up with endless variations that may or may not give one's true type. Like Joy pointed out, the only way to tell if it works is to give to people not familiar with socionics, whose types are known. I'd be interested to see a whole slew of tests "tested" for accuracy on a large sample of people. Then we might have a clear idea which work best.

Anyway, without thinking too hard about it I chose order, procedure, invention, body.

[Jonathan]

4) danger (Ni) v body (Si)

That doesn't make any sense. Why would Ni types gravitate towards danger? Are Ni types supposed to be thrill-seekers?

[Jonathan]

At least Herzy and Cone got their types "right".
According to this test FDG could be ENTJ - what I actually think he most likely is...

I wouldn't put much stock into this 'test'. Whatever type someone is, the idea of ignoring everything you know about a person and then saying, okay, we'll reduce type to four pairs of words, and pretend that that's suddenly more reliable than anything else in the world....It's this weird temptation to do that that keeps popping up on the forum; doesn't make much sense to me.

[CuriousSoul]

4) danger (Ni) v body (Si)

That doesn't make any sense. Why would Ni types gravitate towards danger? Are Ni types supposed to be thrill-seekers?

They are subconsciously. I guess that is where the victim attitude emerges too.
These word pairs do help to pin down the quadra values, IMO.

I wouldn't put much stock into this 'test'. Whatever type someone is, the idea of ignoring everything you know about a person and then saying, okay, we'll reduce type to four pairs of words, and pretend that that's suddenly more reliable than anything else in the world....It's this weird temptation to do that that keeps popping up on the forum; doesn't make much sense to me.

Well how did you get your type in the first place?
For most of us a socionics/MBTI test gave the initial typing at least, and then perhaps there were some contradictions.
A very simple test with four word pairs is hardly meant to be absolutely decisive, but it helps to guide your thinking process.
Anyway, the point is what is reliable then?
I am not terribly impressed by the type descriptions either...

yeah, you're definitely ESFj.

OK, "deconstructing" the test was perhaps unnecessary and patronizing, but the point remains: is it possible to test for the functions in a less obvious way that would not entice people to choose "the correct ones" according to the type they identify with? Or on a larger point: how to make the types appear spontaneously and instinctively?

[Jonathan]

4) danger (Ni) v body (Si)

That doesn't make any sense. Why would Ni types gravitate towards danger? Are Ni types supposed to be thrill-seekers?

They are subconsciously. I guess that is where the victim attitude emerges too.

According to what? How do you know? ILIs, for one, are supposed to warn against dangers, not seek them.
Desiring to not focus on the present, the body, the here-and-now, isn't the same as seeking danger, even subconsciously.
As to the whole victim thing, well, that has more to do with being dual with Se types and having strength in the area of imagination. It doesn't translate into thrill-seeking behaviors.

Actually, SLI types are the ones most likely to do things that other people might consider dangerous, like riding motorcycles and that sort of thing. You have to pretty confident in S (either Si or Se) to actually be the kind who's likely to do these sorts of things.

Even if Ni types are subconsciously drawn to danger, it wouldn't come out in a test like this, because the person takes the test consciously.

Another problem with these kinds of things, and many of the older Hugo stuff (and stuff by Socionists in the same vein) is that it totally ignores the fact that Ne and Ni are both more into invention than action.

Some people tend to think of the I/E pairs of functions as being completely disconnected. I know there's a lot of stuff written in Socionics that tends in that direction, but it doesn't fit with real life.

[Jonathan]

BTW, lest my response seems overly harsh, I do recognize that Hugo's view is representative of one possible view of Socionics. There is more than one Socionics, and as long as people recognize that, it's possible to consider all of them as potentially valid, as only statistical research on intertype relations could ever resolve these different viewpoints. (Okay, sorry, I know I've said that about 50K times. )

[FDG]

Which one do you lean more easily towards for each:

1) order v behaviour

2) procedure v emotion

3) invention v action

4) danger v body



Also state you type.

1 order

2 emotion

3 action

4 body

[aestrivex]

yeah, you're definitely ESFj.

OK, "deconstructing" the test was perhaps unnecessary and patronizing, but the point remains: is it possible to test for the functions in a less obvious way that would not entice people to choose "the correct ones" according to the type they identify with? Or on a larger point: how to make the types appear spontaneously and instinctively?

you clearly didn't understand my point. apparently you still don't.

[CuriousSoul]

yeah, you're definitely ESFj.

OK, "deconstructing" the test was perhaps unnecessary and patronizing, but the point remains: is it possible to test for the functions in a less obvious way that would not entice people to choose "the correct ones" according to the type they identify with? Or on a larger point: how to make the types appear spontaneously and instinctively?

you clearly didn't understand my point. apparently you still don't.

Perhaps you shall kindly explain your point. My telepathic powers are not fully developed yet.
Anyway the trouble is that people tend to reduce the types into simple "platonic essences".
Hence INTJ is a nerd with weird ideas - and therefore Dioklecian is obviously INTJ.
ESFJ is an incoherent rambler perhaps? - and I guess that would make me an ESFJ.
ISTP is a great plumber, but not much of an intellectual, etc...
If you see the primary purpose of socionics as a means of categorizing the various oddities of human behavior, this system works fine, but if you are of the opinion that the socionics type is most likely genetic in origin, and yet everyone of us is completely free to behave as they wish, things do get more complicated. Now if you were to provide me with a deeply analytical and thoroughly original INTJ answer on the question of the nature of socionics type, I would be most grateful. Currently you are not being terribly useful.

[CuriousSoul]

4) danger (Ni) v body (Si)

That doesn't make any sense. Why would Ni types gravitate towards danger? Are Ni types supposed to be thrill-seekers?

They are subconsciously. I guess that is where the victim attitude emerges too.

According to what? How do you know? ILIs, for one, are supposed to warn against dangers, not seek them.

But that is exactly the point. ILIs are preoccupied with detecting and avoiding danger - and would therefore be able to provide warnings and advice that ESFPs would often find useful, because their natural style of behavior could again draw them to dangerous situations. Perhaps the test is poorly formulated, but that only begs the question how to improve the test.

Desiring to not focus on the present, the body, the here-and-now, isn't the same as seeking danger, even subconsciously.
As to the whole victim thing, well, that has more to do with being dual with Se types and having strength in the area of imagination. It doesn't translate into thrill-seeking behaviors.

Actually, SLI types are the ones most likely to do things that other people might consider dangerous, like riding motorcycles and that sort of thing. You have to pretty confident in S (either Si or Se) to actually be the kind who's likely to do these sorts of things.

Even if Ni types are subconsciously drawn to danger, it wouldn't come out in a test like this, because the person takes the test consciously.

Another problem with these kinds of things, and many of the older Hugo stuff (and stuff by Socionists in the same vein) is that it totally ignores the fact that Ne and Ni are both more into invention than action.

Some people tend to think of the I/E pairs of functions as being completely disconnected. I know there's a lot of stuff written in Socionics that tends in that direction, but it doesn't fit with real life.

The I/E pairs are hardly completely disconnected, but there must be a qualitative difference rather than just quantitative or the whole concept of socionics type becomes meaningless - and we are better off with a simple Introversion/Extraversion scale. What the difference is in essence is at this stage hard to say, but personally I found for example this exposition of the functions by Transigent quite insightful. Introverted Feeling defines my attitudes and motivations, Extraverted Feeling is primarily concerned about detecting and manipulating the feelings of other people. Hence a Fi person would say with instinctive confidence: He is a good person/full of shit. Whereas from a certain extraverted feeling point of view morality often appears to consist of essentially arbitrary judgments of personal preference. Judgments that probably actually are mainly rooted in our moral intuitions - or instinctive and mainly subconscious "emotional decision making centers" in the brain, and thus are not ideally suitable for deeper rational analysis.


Ordered Subjective Apprehension
Source: Feelings
This function is responsable for: Feeling any type of emotion or connection.
What it does: Instinctual subjective value judgments and reactions to things, connection of yourself to another person or thing.
If this ever ceased to function: You would be equivalent to a computer and have no attachments to anything.
Practical outcome: Awareness of Emotions

Ordered Subjective Perception
Source: People
This function is responsable for: Determining internal state from emotions, actions, and reactions.
What it does: Notices people as something worth attention, and references the various details of their reactions to determine their state.
If this ever ceased to function: You would not notice that a person is something different then a toaster, or that a smile is different then a frown.
Practical outcome: Awareness of People
Functions According to Transigent

[aestrivex]

yeah, you're definitely ESFj.

OK, "deconstructing" the test was perhaps unnecessary and patronizing, but the point remains: is it possible to test for the functions in a less obvious way that would not entice people to choose "the correct ones" according to the type they identify with? Or on a larger point: how to make the types appear spontaneously and instinctively?

you clearly didn't understand my point. apparently you still don't.

Perhaps you shall kindly explain your point. My telepathic powers are not fully developed yet.
Anyway the trouble is that people tend to reduce the types into simple "platonic essences".
Hence INTJ is a nerd with weird ideas - and therefore Dioklecian is obviously INTJ.
ESFJ is an incoherent rambler perhaps? - and I guess that would make me an ESFJ.
ISTP is a great plumber, but not much of an intellectual, etc...
If you see the primary purpose of socionics as a means of categorizing the various oddities of human behavior, this system works fine, but if you are of the opinion that the socionics type is most likely genetic in origin, and yet everyone of us is completely free to behave as they wish, things do get more complicated. Now if you were to provide me with a deeply analytical and thoroughly original INTJ answer on the question of the nature of socionics type, I would be most grateful. Currently you are not being terribly useful.

for one thing, my conclusion that you were ESE was not based on the fact that you are an "incoherent rambler," but rather that your limited and flawed understanding of what socionics is and what it can be used for, as you indicated in this first post, is very similar conceptually to other behaviors i've seen from ESEs. i don't think explaining my actions further would yield any fruitful discussion.

[CuriousSoul]

for one thing, my conclusion that you were ESE was not based on the fact that you are an "incoherent rambler," but rather that your limited and flawed understanding of what socionics is and what it can be used for, as you indicated in this first post, is very similar conceptually to other behaviors i've seen from ESEs. i don't think explaining my actions further would yield any fruitful discussion.

I am most likely ESFJ actually.
I used to test as INFP, and thought of myself as INFJ for a long time.
Sometimes it is good to trust one's own judgment too.
And believe me, I am perfectly well aware that this overtly literal analysis has not been terribly useful.
I was just hoping that someone might be able to push the limitations of socionics...
It would be interesting to hear what it is that you find interesting in socionics though.