Your result for The Experimental Socionics Test ...
SLI
1% ESE, -3% LIE, 3% SEE, -5% IEE, 5% SLI, 1% ILI, 5% EIE, -1% LSI, -1% LII, -1% SEI, 1% ILE, 1% SLE, 3% IEI, -7% ESI, 1% EII, -1% LSE and 0% Unknown!
That's so off
Your result for The Experimental Socionics Test ...
SLI
1% ESE, -3% LIE, 3% SEE, -5% IEE, 5% SLI, 1% ILI, 5% EIE, -1% LSI, -1% LII, -1% SEI, 1% ILE, 1% SLE, 3% IEI, -7% ESI, 1% EII, -1% LSE and 0% Unknown!
That's so off
EIE tritype 5w4, 4w5, 9w1
As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light in the darkness of mere being.
Carl Jung, "Memories, Dreams, Reflections", 1962
I'm curious as to how the statistics at the end of the test play a role in your test.
EDIT: To all the people getting coflictors, if I remember correctly in terms of reinin dichotomies your conflictor has all the same categories as your type. So in reinin dichotomies for example SEE and LII have all the same dichotomies. If one were to exclude the normal 4 dichotomies so that we have only 12.
Your result for The Experimental Socionics Test ...
IEE
-10% ESE, -2% LIE, 2% SEE, 4% IEE, 2% SLI, -4% ILI, 0% EIE, -2% LSI, 0% LII, 2% SEI, 0% ILE, 2% SLE, 0% IEI, 2% ESI, 0% EII, 0% LSE and 0% Unknown!
http://www.helloquizzy.com/results/t...I=0&var_ILI=-4
Looking for an Archnemesis. Willing applicants contact via PM.
ENFp - Fi 7w6 sp/sx
The Ineffable IEI
The Einstein ENTp
johari nohari
http://www.mypersonality.info/ssmall/
No, it's not. Conflictors have almost identical Reinin dichotomies, and you got a tie between SLI and EIE; as you can see in your results.Originally Posted by Morcheeba
That's so off
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
They differ on Positivist/Negativist and Process/Result, not counting Merry/Serious and Judicious/Decisive; I think.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Your result for The Experimental Socionics Test ...
LSE
-1 ESE, -1 LIE, 1 SEE, 1 IEE, -1 SLI, 3 ILI, 3 EIE, 1 LSI, 1 LII, -3 SEI, -5 ILE, -5 SLE, 1 IEI, -1 ESI, -1 EII, 7 LSE and 0 Unknown!
Hmm. Great.
Unknown
.
You foiled the test. Either you answered "unknown" one too many times, or there was a tie in your results.
0% ESE, 0% LIE, 0% SEE, 0% IEE, 0% SLI, 0% ILI, 0% EIE, 0% LSI, 0% LII, 0% SEI, 0% ILE, 0% SLE, 0% IEI, 0% ESI, 0% EII, 0% LSE and 6% Unknown!
Making tests based on Reinin Dichotomies is useless, because Reinin is based on Forer Effect. For each question both answers applied to some equal extent in my case.
Thank you for proving once more that Reinin is useless.
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
SEI
-4% ESE, 2% LIE, 2% SEE, 0% IEE, 2% SLI, -4% ILI, -2% EIE, 0% LSI, -2% LII, 4% SEI, 2% ILE, 0% SLE, 2% IEI, -2% ESI, 0% EII, -2% LSE and 2% Unknown!
IEI
-3% ESE, 1% LIE, -1% SEE, 3% IEE, 5% SLI, -3% ILI, -3% EIE, -1% LSI, -5% LII, -1% SEI, 1% ILE, -3% SLE, 7% IEI, 1% ESI, -3% EII, 1% LSE and 0% Unknown!
Stan is not my real name.
Not if we first find out what do Reinin Dichotomies actually represent, if anything of value.
I am believer.
Hmm, it worked this time.
http://www.helloquizzy.com/results/t...d1&var%5fILI=1
5% SLI higher than 94%
5% EIE higher than 92%
I am my own conflictor.
-3% ESE, -7% LIE, 3% SEE, -1% IEE, 5% SLI, -3% ILI, 5% EIE, 3% LSI, -1% LII, -1% SEI, 5% ILE, 1% SLE
It's actually not a bad result to have. Conflictors share 7 out of 11 reinin dichotomies in common! More than if you compare other types.
LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
The rational/irrational question should be replaced with judicious/decisive.
LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP
Overall it's a nice test, but objectively (not thinking about the dichotomy each question is supposed to be about, but really thinking about what it says in relation to how I am) I could only find about two questions where I could answer anything other than "unsure." I think this comes from the way people usually talk about Socionics makes a lot of assumptions that if you really think about them are difficult to apply to real life.
For example, what really does it mean to "reject information"? Certain people will tend to argue against any theory or view that is put forth, whereas others will appear like instant true believers. But is this really about rejecting or accepting "information"? Surely people accept some kinds of information and not others. Even if one tends to accept or reject certain kinds of information, probably a lot of factors come into play.
Socionists often simplify, categorizing people into the acceptors and rejectors. But real life isn't as black and white.
The next question is trying to differentiate short- vs. long-term orientation. But if someone is really inclined to be helpful, wouldn't the person be likely to do both? And if the person isn't much inclined to be very helpful, they'd probably not do much of either. Maybe someone observing the person can tell if the person is more short- or long-term oriented. But apart from being a self-report question, it's confounded by the issue of helpfulness; the degree to which one is inclined to help others (which probably varies a lot over time) my affect the results somewhat.
#3...The issue with stability is mentioned a lot in Socionics. But it's only in comparison to other people that one can really answer. Surely everybody feels stable sometimes, and changing other times. For example, are there times where I suddenly feel tired and decide to take a nap? Of course. But then again, I'm not going through bipolar emotional extremes between mania and depression each day either....and of course being bipolar or the sort of hyper-emotionally person who does go on such swings probably isn't necessarily what this dichotomy is intended to measure...but all of this gets mixed up in the wording of what the question actually says.
You think about yourself way too much. Just be yourself.
I'm actually just trying to answer the questions in a straightforward way, based on what they say. If you look at what they are really saying, it reveals some of the weaknesses in how people usually talk about Socionics.
Another interesting issue...assuming that the stable vs. emotional highs-and-lows question is supposed to be about rationality vs. irrationality, I think that's really not true. I think a number of factors may affect whether a person has big emotional highs and lows, but in my observation it has more to do with Fe. It seems that Fe people, especially base-Fe, are the most likely to appear to express emotional extremes in quick succession. I don't think it's really as common or pronounced in ILI, ILE, SLI, or SLE types.
Don't look at what it says just let your mind interpret it on the first take, and run with that.
I think Se can help ILI's break out of the shell a bit. And that can lead to more "extremes" but without ESFp the ILI can get edgy and want to "hide".
I do think with relevant fe/fi a lot of ti/te types can become more emotionally expressive and come out - and then people naturally with have different speeds/levels of eliqbrium, and that's why for balance activity partners race people and they do stupid things and relations of illusionment slow people down and they don't do anything at all.
SLE
0% ESE, -2% LIE, 2% SEE, -2% IEE, -4% SLI, 4% ILI, 0% EIE, -2% LSI, 2% LII, 4% SEI, 2% ILE, 6% SLE, -4% IEI, -2% ESI, 2% EII, -4% LSE and 1% Unknown!
The end is nigh
LSI and conflictor as 2nd
1% ESE, -1% LIE, 1% SEE, 3% IEE, -5% SLI, 1% ILI, -1% EIE, 7% LSI, 1% LII, -1% SEI, -1% ILE, -3% SLE, -3% IEI, -1% ESI, 1% EII, 1% LSE and 3% Unknown!
first time ever getting SEE
1% ESE, 1% LIE, 7% SEE, -5% IEE, 1% SLI, 1% ILI, 1% EIE, -1% LSI, 3% LII, 3% SEI, 1% ILE, -3% SLE, 3% IEI, -7% ESI, -3% EII, -1% LSE and 0% Unknown!
IEI
0% ESE, 0% LIE, -2% SEE, -4% IEE, -2% SLI, -4% ILI, 2% EIE, 4% LSI, -2% LII, 0% SEI, 2% ILE, -4% SLE, 6% IEI, -2% ESI, 0% EII, 6% LSE and 1% Unknown!
I wonder what the '1% unknown' result could be?
LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP
ILE0% ESE, -4% LIE, -2% SEE, -4% IEE, -4% SLI, -2% ILI, 2% EIE, 2% LSI, 0% LII, 0% SEI, 8% ILE, -2% SLE, -2% IEI, 6% ESI, 0% EII, 0% LSE and 1% Unknown!You scored highest on ILE, but take this with a grain of salt. The test is still in the development phase, and I'd love to hear any suggestions you might have for improving it.
I got 5% SEE, 5% IEI and 5% SEI
I guess the test is still "experimental". @Subteigh's test is better but I can't find it.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Okay, I went back and changed a couple of answers and now I'm LSI!
LSI
-1% ESE, -3% LIE, -1% SEE, -3% IEE, -3% SLI, -5% ILI, 1% EIE, 5% LSI, -1% LII, -3% SEI, 5% ILE, -1% SLE, 3% IEI, 1% ESI, 3% EII, 3% LSE and 1% Unknown!
Here’s my responses with my analysis. Upper case letters indicate clearer preference, lower case a more slight preference
.
1. B (but supposedly LII is negativist not positivist). I am open to taking in new ideas and information. I am generally accepting at first but may find flaws and reject it later and want to come up with something new.
2. a I don’t really check up on others much once I’ve given them advice- perhaps I should? When providing solutions- I take both the immediate and the long-term into account. I read the about the tactical/strategic dichotomy though and strategic makes a whole lot more sense for me than tactical. My methods fit the goals, not the other way around. Goals fitting the methods sounds rather backward to me . (again LII should prefer the opposite)
3. a Probably more the first- in the general sense of the word I’m quite stable emotionally but there have definitely been times where my emotions have changed suddenly.
4. B. I am constantly speculating, more interested in my own understanding than what’s necessariliy accepted by the authorities although I certainly take the proven and authoritative into account.
5. A. I avoid conflict if possible, don’t always need to prove myself right. H subtype, type 9 tendencies, yadda yadda yadda.
6. Unsure. My conversations tend to have a purpose- not much into idle chatter but when I do want to know someone better it is for more personal, emotional reasons. (I’ve always have great difficulty placing myself on the constructivist/emotivist dichotomy)
7. b I am introvert- I prefer to work alone, think quietly by myself although my Ne does like brainstorming and bouncing ideas off others- that is appealing. This is supposed to be measuring process/result?
8. A. Inquisitive and curious, yes! I am rarely fully confident in my own statements because as I take in more information, my outlook may change.
9. b Probably somewhat more static than dynamic but sometimes I’m oblivious to characteristics of objects in front of me (weak sensing perhaps) but I tend to assess situations pretty well. I tend to see changes more as a ‘jump in state’ I need to react.
10. unsure. I prefer to enter a situation with some preparation and idea of what’s likely to happen but I don’t really enjoy planning extensively. I can adapt as needed.
11. b. Supposedly this is the aristocratic response. I would have said A as it’s very important to me to keep everyone on an equal plane, but I don’t like the idea of people just freely interrupting each other all the time. To me that doesn’t seem polite. Let one person speak at a time, listen to that person and then the next person speak. I don’t know what that has to do with aristocratic.
LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP
tsk tsk Myst. Necroing stuff are we?LSI and conflictor as 2nd
1% ESE, -1% LIE, 1% SEE, 3% IEE, -5% SLI, 1% ILI, -1% EIE, 7% LSI, 1% LII, -1% SEI, -1% ILE, -3% SLE, -3% IEI, -1% ESI, 1% EII, 1% LSE and 3% Unknown!
Anyhow, these are my results. They aren't odd at all if you ask me.
-5% ESE, -5% LIE, 5% SEE, 5% IEE, 3% SLI, -1% ILI, -1% EIE, 5% LSI, -3% LII, -3% SEI, 3% ILE, -5% SLE, 1% IEI, -1% ESI, -1% EII, -1% LSE and 0 unknown!
but if I modify it a bit(guess that I answered the conflict question right outta ennea 8):
-7% ESE, -3% LIE, 3% SEE, 3% IEE, 1% SLI, -3% ILI, -3% EIE, 3% LSI, -5% LII, -1% SEI, 5% ILE, -3% SLE, 3% IEI, 1% ESI, 1% EII, 1% LSE and 0 unknown!
...so in one version I am a mixture of SEE / IEE and LSI and in the other an ILE. ...ok! The fight will continue raging in the coloured types I guess(what else is new).
Your result for The Experimental Socionics Test ...IEE-6% ESE, -2% LIE, 2% SEE, 4% IEE, 2% SLI, -4% ILI, -4% EIE, 2% LSI, -4% LII, -2% SEI, 4% ILE, -2% SLE, 4% IEI, 2% ESI, 0% EII, 0% LSE and 0% Unknown!
Alright I've got 3 types.
Lol fun but I'm still more LSI than you
I redid it too. I changed an "unsure" answer to a definite answer. Even more LSI now. Not to compete with you
0% ESE, -2% LIE, 0% SEE, 4% IEE, -4% SLI, 0% ILI, 0% EIE, 8% LSI, 0% LII, 0% SEI, 0% ILE, -4% SLE, -4% IEI, 0% ESI, 0% EII, 0% LSE and 2% Unknown!
Let me compare answers...
I picked unsure. I hear out stuff but I do not actually absorb it easily. Is this really positivism/negativism, oh... I'd never have guessed.1. B (but supposedly LII is negativist not positivist). I am open to taking in new ideas and information. I am generally accepting at first but may find flaws and reject it later and want to come up with something new.
In my case the former (A) too except that I do make it a task to follow up to see if they are OK, need more help, etc. But clearly that's not what it was asking about mainly. I do focus more on the specific situation etc.2. a I don’t really check up on others much once I’ve given them advice- perhaps I should? When providing solutions- I take both the immediate and the long-term into account. I read the about the tactical/strategic dichotomy though and strategic makes a whole lot more sense for me than tactical. My methods fit the goals, not the other way around. Goals fitting the methods sounds rather backward to me . (again LII should prefer the opposite)
I'm not sure I fully understand the Tactical/Strategic dichotomy though... I do focus on methods but I do want my goals.
Definitely the former for me too.3. a Probably more the first- in the general sense of the word I’m quite stable emotionally but there have definitely been times where my emotions have changed suddenly.
I do both A and B, so I picked unsure. I like reliable proven data and prefer it to speculation but I develop my own understanding by contemplating.4. B. I am constantly speculating, more interested in my own understanding than what’s necessariliy accepted by the authorities although I certainly take the proven and authoritative into account.
Definitely B for me. I think my type incl subtype is the most Obstinate one5. A. I avoid conflict if possible, don’t always need to prove myself right. H subtype, type 9 tendencies, yadda yadda yadda.
The latter (B) for me. Though it can help to have an excuse for contacting someone, depending on situation. Usually not needed tho'. Um and emotional level, it's not very conscious to me.6. Unsure. My conversations tend to have a purpose- not much into idle chatter but when I do want to know someone better it is for more personal, emotional reasons. (I’ve always have great difficulty placing myself on the constructivist/emotivist dichotomy)
Yeah definite B7. b I am introvert- I prefer to work alone, think quietly by myself although my Ne does like brainstorming and bouncing ideas off others- that is appealing. This is supposed to be measuring process/result?
Definite B. I get told a lot of complaints on that one.8. A. Inquisitive and curious, yes! I am rarely fully confident in my own statements because as I take in more information, my outlook may change.
Definite B.9. b Probably somewhat more static than dynamic but sometimes I’m oblivious to characteristics of objects in front of me (weak sensing perhaps) but I tend to assess situations pretty well. I tend to see changes more as a ‘jump in state’ I need to react.
A for me, I do have plans tho, so, I first ticked unsure but I think I get now what it was asking about. This is what made me more LSI10. unsure. I prefer to enter a situation with some preparation and idea of what’s likely to happen but I don’t really enjoy planning extensively. I can adapt as needed.
For me unsure. The former can be fun I'm sure, though everyone interrupting everyone else all the time would get to be a pain in the ass. But in most situations I'm reserved like in the latter option. I'm not sure where it can be like the former but I don't mind the idea so I went with unsure.11. b. Supposedly this is the aristocratic response. I would have said A as it’s very important to me to keep everyone on an equal plane, but I don’t like the idea of people just freely interrupting each other all the time. To me that doesn’t seem polite. Let one person speak at a time, listen to that person and then the next person speak. I don’t know what that has to do with aristocratic.
Your result for The Experimental Socionics Test ...
EIE
-1% ESE, -1% LIE, 1% SEE, -3% IEE, 3% SLI, 3% ILI, 7% EIE, -3% LSI, 1% LII, -3% SEI, -5% ILE, -1% SLE, -3% IEI, -1% ESI, 3% EII, 3% LSE and 0% Unknown!
LSI
5% ESE, -3% LIE, -5% SEE, -1% IEE, 1% SLI, 1% ILI, 5% EIE, 7% LSI, -5% LII, -1% SEI, 1% ILE, -3% SLE, -1% IEI, -3% ESI, 1% EII, -1% LSE and 0% Unknown!
Haha, I think something is wrong here...
SEE
-1% ESE, -1% LIE, 9% SEE, -3% IEE, -1% SLI, -1% ILI, -1% EIE, 1% LSI, 5% LII, 1% SEI, 3% ILE, -1% SLE, 1% IEI, -5% ESI, -1% EII, -3% LSE and 0% Unknown!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
