Should I base my tests on these function descriptions?

[Hugo]

Should I base my tests on these function descriptions:
http://www.socionika.com/information_elements.htm

Will it make it easier to choose from test options?

[anndelise]

I vote yes because those elements of information ARE socionic's functions. (As opposed to various interpretations of interpretations of interpretations and pathetic attempts to redefine functions so people can call themselves INTp, ENTj, or whatever.)

[Hugo]

I was thinking of making those function descriptions down to earth (if that is possible).

[Cone]

Yeah, if you can translate that information into something understandable by and relatable to people, then I say go for it.

[Joy]

It's a good idea, but the problem is that it might be hard for people who are new to Socionics to be able to differentiate between the options, and therefore, they'll probably have trouble deciding which one to choose, and get less accurate results.

that happened to my parents with hugo's second test

[Hugo]

This is what i've done:


I am focused on emotional relationships between people. I am focused on who likes who and who dislikes who. I am focused on people’s needs. I am focused on proper behaviour. I make decisions based on personal emotions and feelings.


I am focused on logical relationships between things. I create a system of rules, a system of ranking and organizing things. I make comparisons between things. I make decisions objectively, based on logic.


I am focused on facts (what, how, where), activities, step-by-step problem-solving procedures.


I am focused on people’s moods, emotional activity, emotional arousability and emotional content.


I am focused on things (a pattern of events) that occur over a span of time. I have a sense of when things might happen.


I am focused on things that happen at a specific point in time. I am focused on my health, sensations and what I experience physically.


I am focused on the potential/capability of people and things, which can be developed. I am focused on inherent possibilities.


I am focused on the external traits of people and things: form, shape, strength, power.

[Joy]

the description sounds a little bit and the descrption sounds a little bit

[Jonathan]

This is what i've done so far:

Those aren't bad at all, but in the process of simplifying, they edit out some good stuff from the URL you posted.

However, I wouldn't recommend adding to these to create long questions....Maybe divide up what's said in that URL into several questions for each question, and then tally it up. It's always easier to answer a question about one thing at a time.

Anyhow, overall, it would be good to include some of the other things in that URL in some form. In particular, I have trouble with all the definitions I hear that say that is focusing on facts (note that the URL you posted mentions several things, of which facts is only one).

The problem is that and also concern facts. After all, people typically perceive facts through the senses.

In my experience, people with strong are often especially good at remembering and noticing lots of facts. I think people with strong are probably also good with facts.

Anyhow, the URL mentioned a number of things about in addition to facts.

[Hugo]

The description above is mainly for distinguishing between whether a person has stronger or stronger .

[niveK]

This is what i've done so far:

Those aren't bad at all, but in the process of simplifying, they edit out some good stuff from the URL you posted.

However, I wouldn't recommend adding to these to create long questions....Maybe divide up what's said in that URL into several questions for each question, and then tally it up. It's always easier to answer a question about one thing at a time.

Anyhow, overall, it would be good to include some of the other things in that URL in some form. In particular, I have trouble with all the definitions I hear that say that is focusing on facts (note that the URL you posted mentions several things, of which facts is only one).

The problem is that and also concern facts. After all, people typically perceive facts through the senses.

In my experience, people with strong are often especially good at remembering and noticing lots of facts. I think people with strong are probably also good with facts.

Anyhow, the URL mentioned a number of things about in addition to facts.

"Facts" in the sense of and would be more precisely described as "details." In the sense (though I won't be surprised if some types want to correct me on this), "facts" might be better described as "axioms."

[Olga]

We can try if we want to and if we do not ignore the subjective opinion of others.

I am not sure about those descriptions from Russian site. Yours are better: concise and grounded.

The difference between Fe and Fi is:

Expression versus sensitivity or feelings Fi versus emotions Fe(look in my topic about model B).

Fe and Fi - other directed that means directed to influence others.
But they are in different blocks Ego versus Superego. Ego is not spiritual. That means Fe lacks morals/senstivity - whatever serves Ego/Life is good.

Fi on the other hand lacks expression while having morals and sensitivity. Fi people have not been born to influence people by emotions but spiritual guidance which serves Superego/Afterlife.

Both functions are extreme of the dimension --------- which should be balanced to be right and for the person to be happy:

Love the other person as much as you love yourself.

Once they are balancced we shall get Fe types which influence people and Fi types produce guidance into positive direction.
Do you suggest that I am talking non-sense or may be my model is non-sense? For socionincs to change the environment - needs to talk about issues like that and not to ignore them.

[anndelise]

This is what i've done:


I am focused on emotional relationships between people. I am focused on who likes who and who dislikes who. I am focused on people’s needs. I am focused on proper behaviour. I make decisions based on personal emotions and feelings.

Maybe something like, "I am focused on the likes, dislikes, and needs of people."

I am focused on logical relationships between things. I create a system of rules, a system of ranking and organizing things. I make comparisons between things. I make decisions objectively, based on logic.

I would wipe off the objective decisions and logic sentence. Everyone, including Fs, use logic, the difference is is which information they are each attending to.
Perhaps something like, "I am focused on the quanitifable relationships, rules, and rankings between things."

I am focused on facts (what, how, where), activities, step-by-step problem-solving procedures.


I am focused on people’s moods, emotional activity, emotional arousability and emotional content.


I am focused on things (a pattern of events) that occur over a span of time. I have a sense of when things might happen.


I am focused on things that happen at a specific point in time. I am focused on my health, sensations and what I experience physically.


I am focused on the potential/capability of people and things, which can be developed. I am focused on inherent possibilities.


I am focused on the external traits of people and things: form, shape, strength, power.

Some of the others could use a slight modification, but I don't want to nitpick. I would suggest, that if you are using one sentence format, keep all of them as one sentence. Like, I loved how you did the Fe and Te. If you can format the others the same way, that would reduce some of the confusion.

[Jonathan]

The description above is mainly for distinguishing between whether a person has stronger or stronger .

It still may confuse people if it sounds like S. A person who's very N may have a hard time choosing your description over .

By the way, as I read it again, the "step-by-step" thing is problematic too, and wasn't even in the URL description. I remember you mentioned something about "step-by-step" in one of your other posts.

Although is often concerned with sequential steps, I don't think that someone who is a perceiving type, especially , would identify with that wording.

Probably the most "step-by-step" kind of person is ISTj, who has rather than . I knew an ISTj once who insisted on doing everything in a certain order, even when it made more sense to be flexible about the order.

Also, ISj people in general tend to like to finish one thing before starting something else, which is the way I read "step-by-step." (Actually, wasn't there some 3 Stooges episode where the person kept saying "step-by-step"...something about Niagara Falls...but that's besides the point...)

So what would be a better description of ? Maybe something like this:


I am focused on objective methods, procedures, and strategies for solving problems, figuring things out, or getting things done.

[Hugo]

I would wipe off the objective decisions and logic sentence. Everyone, including Fs, use logic, the difference is is which information they are each attending to.

s tend to make decisions with their "head", while s tend to make decisions with their "heart"

I'm not saying F types don't use logic

[anndelise]

I would wipe off the objective decisions and logic sentence. Everyone, including Fs, use logic, the difference is is which information they are each attending to.

s tend to make decisions with their "head", while s tend to make decisions with their "heart"

I'm not saying F types don't use logic

that "heart" still has a logic it uses

[Hugo]

basically, i'm distinguishing between people who make decisions based on objectivity and based on personal feelings

[anndelise]

basically, i'm distinguishing between people who make decision based on objectivity and based on personal feelings

all i'm saying is that the words "logic" and "objective" are loaded terms.

Virtually every person perceives of themselves as being "logical". Most people consider themselves as making decisions based on "objective" information. Even a person who makes a decision that includes their own wants/interests as well as the wants/interests of others can be said to be "logical", and in some cases "objective". (since 1 there is generally reasoning behind their decision, and 2 they looked beyond their own personal thoughts/interests)

Using the terms "logic" and "objective" biases the one taking the test towards choosing either of the Ts merely because each person considers themselves logical.

The question is, do you want to risk misinterpretations of such oft misused words as "logic" and "objective", or do you want to be more exact in what you are referring to?

[Olga]

It is not an easy question, I agree with both of you. May be the meaning of what Hugo says is right but the form of representation is not quite.

In the ambigious situations you either follow your mind or your heart.

Logical will go for mind as their heart can confuse them even more. Feelings type find it difficult to avoid messages from heart. Soemthing like that. It is true that many men consider themselves as very logical.

So may be it is a good idea to prepare the reader by reference to feelings or mind. Like you did in your test: e.g. your are very sensitive towards people emotions or you pick up the people's emotions straight away and easily adopt to them. In ambigious situations you follow your heart rather than mind and on the opposite. In the interactoin with people your build up your point on refernce to objective reality and facts by avoiding emotional statements. In ambigious situations you will trust your mind rather than your feelings. - Something like that.

[Expat]

Although is often concerned with sequential steps, I don't think that someone who is a perceiving type, especially , would identify with that wording.

Probably the most "step-by-step" kind of person is ISTj, who has rather than . I knew an ISTj once who insisted on doing everything in a certain order, even when it made more sense to be flexible about the order.

Doing something "step-by-step" IMO is a consequence of weak , which is why it's characteristic of ISTjs, ISFjs, ESFjs and ESTjs. It's one reason why these types are the most "J" in MBTI sense.

I think that the old descriptions were better; the new ones - as they stand - lead to confusion, especially for and , and and .

[Olga]

I remember what you said about Fe and Fi : principles. But what is it you do not like about new descriptions of Te and Ti. How would you describe them?