1. Originally Posted by Ruby13357
I'm getting IEI again [...]
imagination of alternatives («Ne») = 3.25, suggestion of synchrony («Fe») = 1.77, imagination of metamorphosis («Ni») = 1.23, [...] suggestion of relationships («Fi») = 0.59
Both e/i variants of a function among strongest supposes a higher chance it's correct. So NF type.
and N > F
valued variants are lesser clear: small difference of sums Ne+Fi vs Ni+Fe, 1st and 2nd do not match in same type
IEE or IEI

Originally Posted by Hermes Trismegistus
This test is bullshit
Fe evaluation to support IEI > IEE as your type

2. Originally Posted by Sol
Fe evaluation to support IEI > IEE as your type
Actually Ne evaluation --> comparing a test with bullshit due to low potential for being trustworthy

Edit: also, be very careful when spotting functions, that can be very misleading, because everyone has all eight functions, and they all appear at some point. Also, you need to look beyond appearances and look for the motivations. Fe is about common/shared values, whereas I'm basing my evaluation purely on given data and its perceived potential

3. Originally Posted by necrosebud
imagination of alternatives («Ne») = 2.43, [...] suggestion of relationships («Fi») = 1.46
[...]
yet again thinks my leading functions are Ne and Fi but type lii haha
Besides common, there could be used exotic theories for resulted type. Reinin traits can be an example.
If to use functions, shown as relatively strong - you got IEE there. What is 1 dichotomy away from correct IEI. It's in borders of not bad tests of today.

Tests based on 8 variants of functions also should to have a chance to mistake to mirror types similar to mistake in a single dichotomy.

4. Originally Posted by Expansion
I've retaken the test and i can't alter ILE....like 4 times.
.
I thought i wasn't sure on strength of choices or entered in not sure for some others in a trade and it is consistent.
Originally Posted by necrosebud
yet again thinks my leading functions are Ne and Fi but type lii haha
Examining the collection of results, I've noticed something which initially surprised me:

With the exception of Northstar, all who responded to this test scored high, and highest of the four 'functions of self-positioning in society', in separation of independence, which according to the results page has got the following characteristics:
*****most I (LII, ESI): +I: low stress resistance, social separation, moral fastidiousness & striving for moral purity, defense of personal freedom and justice
This exemplifies the liberal-bourgeois mindset common in, for instance, US, Canada, UK, France. In fact, many people from Western countries with lower peace indices are not as egalitarian as they claim, but that’s neither here nor there—this forum could have a fringe sampling or simply people who were raised in a society in which certain values are acceptable

For comparison, this is what Northstar* had:
[separation of exclusivity]*****most E (EIE, LSE): +E: elitism, irritation of discomfort, squeamishness for low quality resourses[sic], aversion to the lower, alien and sick, indignation
Most people in the countries listed above won’t answer this way because it potentially reveals entitlement (indignation vs lenity) and contempt for those that need help—which people, more notable in a society where very rich and very poor live in perpetual adjacency, might have had quite different social positions not long ago. So there is a tacit acknowledgment (among the discerning who are exposed to such sights) that the barrier between comfort and desperation is thinner than corporate propaganda would have everyone believe. Whether 'separation of independence' types would actually show resourceful collaborationism (that is, low or negative 'separation of exclusivity') is moot… er well, as a point of interest, nobody thus far has scored a positive value for 'acceptance of collaboration' either, probably indicative of high competition and mistrust.

This means, among other things, that the test has a bias for labelling delta-NFs from the above listed countries as alpha-NT types. The α-shift is compounded by all of the test takers so far having non-negative scores for 'liberalism' as opposed to 'paternalism' (except northstar, although such a slight paternalism score is, imo, probably neutral). 'Liberalism', or those who chose democracy over authoritarian rule, shunts test takers to αγ (the democratic quadrants)

*This post should not be misconstrued as offering commentary on Northstar’s personal inclinations, regarding which I’ve no ideas—I’m merely pointing out that, if Sweden has less visible poverty and abjection, the results for all who have taken the test thus far should actually be consistent with expectations for their respective ~nationalities

Originally Posted by Hermes Trismegistus
This test is bullshit
As I'd pointed out in an earlier post, a sceptical mind notices potentially-misleading starkness in equivocal 'dichotomy' prompts (there aren't any questions). Only this does not appear to have created as much of an error as I'd thought.

imo this test isn’t entirely bad—for instance it appears to return function strengths more or less as expected, but depends upon
the relative deviation of the values of the function from the average population, averaged on all people with this type being the leading one
, before giving a final estimate of type, which, as discussed above, obviously cannot be extrapolated outside Russia

Originally Posted by Expansion
I was hoping for IEE .... cool type
I’ll say. Actually, after adjusting for systematic error described above, it looks as if you’ve got it

5. Originally Posted by Sol
Test by Ivan Romanov, 40 questions
http://socionavigator.com/qualifier_40_en
Sol, could you post your results?

6. Originally Posted by stibnite
Examining the collection of results, I've noticed something which initially surprised me:

With the exception of Northstar, all who responded to this test scored high, and highest of the four 'functions of self-positioning in society', in separation of independence, which according to the results page has got the following characteristics:
Yeah I read that and i personally found the phrasing too severe, but I guess I do lean liberal (I don't like the extremes though, but extreme "left" doesn't really come across as liberal to me).

(I don't fully get your post - for example I don't know what bourgeois liberalism is, and upon looking it up it only confused me further. I am generally not deeply familiar with philosophy and politics terms/language).

7. Originally Posted by Expansion
It was long ago when I was interested to do tests. In most cases I got LSI.
In Talanov's 8 function test too.

8. Originally Posted by Sol
This test is accented on e/i functional variants. Also I notice additional heresy, what is better to ignore.

Meaningfully above 0 are: Te, Se, Ti.
This can be interpreted that T is above S, - J type.
That by values you are closer to Ti+Se (3.94) than Te+Si (2.93).
Leading type is said with Ti+Se.

In short: beta T > delta T.
In short: twist the results so that you can say it supports your own typing?

Te is by far stronger than Ti in that result, interestingly also Fi stronger than Fe. That's just heresy, though? Leading type according to functions is Te + Se. I can get behind that. Calculation of profit = Te is pretty much my main mode, at least compared to "calculation of laws". I don't care about laws, I care about profit and end result.

9. Originally Posted by stibnite
This means, among other things, that the test has a bias for labelling delta-NFs from the above listed countries as alpha-NT types. The α-shift is compounded by all of the test takers so far having non-negative scores for 'liberalism' as opposed to 'paternalism' (except northstar, although such a slight paternalism score is, imo, probably neutral). 'Liberalism', or those who chose democracy over authoritarian rule, shunts test takers to αγ (the democratic quadrants)
I'm quite certain that lots of socionics values do not transfer well across country borders. At least in wording. Quadra values seem quite perplexing when you see people reacting to their typing.

10. ## 'socionics in english: main points' --stibnite's outrageous commentary

I'd like to comment on some of the content expressed here:
>https://socionavigator.com/socionics
...which I've found oddly illuminating. More than other socionics texts, this one merits a thorough read

Strategies defining the type of selection of the genotype and its cultural shell (what eventually forms this genotype and culture)
...In times of trouble, dynamic types are doing all the work, building the infrastructure and harvesting resources and dealing with the environment, whereas statics are sorting out their eugenic aims, smh

...@inumbra and I sort of simultaneously came to a realisation eight years ago (to sum up, bits of Jung's introverted intuitive archetype, and most of the introverted sensoric archetype as well, appear both to have been appropriated in socionics for Ni, whereas Si gets impoverished, relegated to lower-order cognitive noise in most texts; here the distribution is a bit different to the usual which is at least refreshing but also illustrates how the socion tends to 'drift', pointlessly and hopelessly.
(She'd also mentioned that the rational functions have slightly better correspondence between theories, which someone publishing socionics primers appears finally to have recognised... and then distorted )
In contrast, Jung discusses the introverted sensoric type not in terms of dogged traditionalism (imo a misinterpretation of Briggs-Myers') nor strictly in terms of lower-order functioning (most of socionics), but as having a tendency towards 1)if an art form is acquired, a means of highly-advanced communication that stands in sharp contrast to intuitive mentation--and psychologists studying intelligence have written that creativity can only be associated with high intelligence--can be seen to synthesise visceral knowledge of the inexpressible with presumably a sensoric presentation, such as a painting, a piece of music, or a dance and 2)atavism which preserves the most valuable relics of the past through concrete resurrection (not forcing others to adhere to traditionalism as a matter of course but becoming in itself somewhat of a throwback), including but not restricted to fine art, music, dance...
Inumbra and I, despite, I think, both being ILI in socionics and supposedly devaluing this function, have both noted that such a character might have great value to society.
That said the above summary fails to substantially elucidate or improve on most of the irrational function portraits

The gamma irrational dyad appear to be the most dishonest in the socion, and since metamorph. (—M in the diagram, Ni everywhere else) has the strongest functional association with dishonesty, ILI, not EIE, are the biggest, fattest liars, according to Romanov.
There are a lot of ways to be dishonest though, and Ni ego types are not known for having elaborately-detailed memories, so it’s possible for an Ni base to adopt a policy of strictly telling the truth. Of course there are also {omissions} and {situational avoidance} and {allowing others to languish in false impressions} —lesser forms of dishonesty thanks to varying moral onus (selective presentations being the most guilt-ridden, particularly if they’ve knowingly encouraged misinterpretation, although they’re generally more difficult to catch out than an overt lie, and some, I think, may prove totally blameless, e.g., a pretence of incompetence). Whatever my type, I have avoided outright dishonesty since youth, having realised people tend to cling to the initial lie, turning blind eyes towards a sincere confession of past dishonesty. I wouldn’t say this makes me significantly more honest than average, only I’ve a sufficiently neutral mind to notice evil inclinations in my own heart, as well as having more than one stopgap intended to prevent myself doing something I might regret. The most unexpected, and most likely to generate remorse, is the situation which evokes a sudden gentleness towards an individual, which seldom happens, but also cannot happen predictably as it’s purely emotional. The realisation for any person of having injured one towards whom they feel even abrupt or unmeant tenderness generates a sort of long-resonating emotional pain, one of the worst humans can experience. My parents used to say I was very 'hidden', which they saw as a rather flagrant (because global) form of dishonesty. On the other hand, I would consider their vices quite typical (mild, sex-related) and therefore less subject to opprobrium, whereas mine could not be displayed concurrently without arousing suspicion and defied comprehension, full stop.

11. ## further commentary on notions presented at https://socionavigator.com/socionics

ILI [ИЛИ] {= +M−S−E} "lone scavenger" strategy (searching for and tracking someone else's misfortune in order in a situation of general disunity to be the first to use the freed up resources)
Well the image is vivid enough, though ghoulish. When it comes to proper scavenging, or stealing from the dead, of course I’ve nothing against it—whether there’s a complex, bureaucratic afterlife or pure oblivion, it’s clear the dead no longer have any use for artefacts of the material plane. But in practice, many resources have an expiry date, some send out signals (warmth, fresh smell) which draw others (competition in dire situation—>bloodshed), and thus it would seem more prudent to compress the scavenging expedition as much as possible. If there’s pressure to expedite scavenging, many situations will arise in which resources are possibly still of use to the weakened/unfortunate (—but not yet dead) individual, which renders 'lone scavenging' a low-risk yet fundamentally violent act. Picture a dying man clutching a gun… as he is dying, the gun will not save him, but all the same, his final moments will not be blinded by terror. It’s all very well for me to say I’ve a 'decisive-type' nervous system: it seems I am motivated rather than weakened by increasingly-steep competition ('unlocking' as it were much more refined skills, cf. however I’d previously assessed my abilities, so that in much more difficult and somewhat frightening situations, in fact my performance improves dramatically—a clear fact about myself which I’ve always considered incompatible with Se-polr). Yet these are bloodless situations—the stakes are financial or sometimes social.

According to T Hobbes, the original (in the West—viz., from what I’ve read) and still one of the most visionary social gestalt philosophers, it’s the average equality (or else poor intellectual speciation, lol) of humans which makes a state of freedom so volatile, so liable to result in endless war. An equally-matched competition has no clear winner and is doomed to chaos from the outset, which stymies technological progress and design of cooperative infrastructures.

So it’s lovely for forumites to LARP a wider type spread but when it comes to a state of human warfare cooperation is simply the superior attitude. According to this vision, all decisive types are essentially inferior beasts.

This method of thinking is quite dangerous, as its upshot must inevitably be arbitrary segregation, avoidance, and categorical rejection.

12. Originally Posted by Hermes Trismegistus
Actually Ne evaluation --> comparing a test with bullshit due to low potential for being trustworthy

Edit: also, be very careful when spotting functions, that can be very misleading, because everyone has all eight functions, and they all appear at some point. Also, you need to look beyond appearances and look for the motivations. Fe is about common/shared values, whereas I'm basing my evaluation purely on given data and its perceived potential

Ne does also evaluate on the capacity of general things within their environment. Being able to descriptively list out the importance of the true capacity and limitations/extent of information as too when they apply.

I don't get how your inclinations would be Ni > Ne since you always seem to emphasize alternative perspectives and the extent to how and when they apply, and a more realistic approach to how people work.

Ne + Fi + Te.

13. I still hold Sol to ESTJ

He rolls out the facts, and defends the data, with more data and data, ad infinitum data, and reasons in between the data, with data, as the bottom line period
Si type who skips Ne
Low agreeableness snips out any Role.

14. Originally Posted by Expansion
He rolls out the facts
From Te I try to rely on objectivity. Where it's possibly in our speculative typology-astrology. To point what should be trusted more, being more basic and better based data.
I have an interest to tasty food by Si. And not placing angry "vikings" on self-representing avatars to show big interest in violence by Se.

15. Originally Posted by Sol
From Te I try to rely on objectivity. Where it's possibly in our speculative typology-astrology. To point what should be trusted more, being more basic and better based data.
I have an interest to tasty food by Si. And not placing angry "vikings" on avatars to show big interest in violence by Se.
I always see Sol in the 11 time zone land, reading the press info. on the latest news, sitting in the kitchen with a TV in there, as he wakes up, and Sol has a cup or mug, and on that mug there is the inscription Si on it.

Yes, it is comfort, Si comfort, and Sol logs in to disseminate his mission here at 16T, a mission of the understanding brought by the Si Te hard coded facts, dismissing anything untested as hubris.

Sol should take advice from posters though, if they ask to stop typing them, then Sol should. That would make it better for you, people would find it easier to connect to you, and others wont get irritated by it.

People come around on their own terms, not accepting someone else's truth as their own. Force does not work, it is the tool of control with fear underlying it, and control is not love.

It's a win win scenario.

My subconscious drive and mission in life has been to make agreeableness better or more.

*A little better makes better more*

My new slogan at 16T

16. Originally Posted by Expansion
Sol should take advice from posters though, if they ask to stop typing them, then Sol should.
Who does not want to know opinions about types - those should not read typology forums.
And who does not want to get disagreements, those should not say mistakes or doubtful.

To offer do not say people truth which is important and fits to site's theme is not reasonable.
It's among arguments for your F type. And of others who think similarly. @Adam Strange was is an example of them (who also tells "LIE" experiences of how "duals" attract him lesser than LSI).

17. Originally Posted by Sol
Who does not want to know opinions about types - those should not read typology forums.
And who does not want to get disagreements, those should not say mistakes or doubtful.

To offer do not say people truth which is important and fits to site's theme is not reasonable.
It's among arguments for your F type. And of others who think similarly. @Adam Strange was is an example of them (who also tells "LIE" experiences of how "duals" attract him lesser than LSI).
You lack wisdom.

Profoundly.

Your truth might not be the truth.

If it is the truth, you can present that piece, but where is the wisdom if you are forcing that onto someone? You feel enough times it will sink in with Si nagging. Communication works with open doors, not coercion like your place of residence espouses.

This hits walls of bricks, I know.

You can tell ESFj and ESTj with nagging. Anyone who nags a lot and forces blocks through the wrong holes are likely here in this group.

SEI and SLI are can do it too, until Si comfort is satisfied.

18. just now took it for fun

Page 10 of 10 First ... 678910