LSI
58% ILE, 49% LII, 40% ESE, 49% SEI, 90% SLE, 92% LSI, 42% EIE, 50% IEI, 40% SEE, 53% ESI, 49% LIE, 57% ILI, 16% IEE, 18% EII, 47% LSE and 47% SLI!
LSI
58% ILE, 49% LII, 40% ESE, 49% SEI, 90% SLE, 92% LSI, 42% EIE, 50% IEI, 40% SEE, 53% ESI, 49% LIE, 57% ILI, 16% IEE, 18% EII, 47% LSE and 47% SLI!
The Observer (ILI)
55% ILE, 55% LII, 28% ESE, 47% SEI, 47% SLE, 56% LSI, 31% EIE, 60% IEI, 34% SEE, 44% ESI, 51% LIE, 83% ILI, 42% IEE, 50% EII, 49% LSE and 69% SLI!
The Romantic (IEI)
47% ILE, 47% LII, 53% ESE, 60% SEI, 47% SLE, 56% LSI, 66% EIE, 73% IEI, 54% SEE, 57% ESI, 38% LIE, 42% ILI, 46% IEE, 40% EII, 34% LSE and 38% SLI!
This is my test result now. In June 2014 I was leading a nation to power. Well it's still fair enough that it was the 2nd highest type.
Your result for The Splendid Socionics Test 3.0 ...The Guardian (ESI)
15% ILE, 47% LII, 44% ESE, 44% SEI, 28% SLE, 63% LSI, 68% EIE, 58% IEI, 58% SEE, 83% ESI, 60% LIE, 49% ILI, 44% IEE, 67% EII, 44% LSE and 36% SLI!
The primary focus in life for ESIs is on stable inner criteria for personal relationships, therefore they follow ethical principles through which they evaluate their own and others' behavior and ideas, backed by input from what they perceive as the real world and how people really are rather than idealism, imagination or not-demonstrated potential in people.
The ESI sees reality primarily through static personal ethics and stable interpersonal bonds between individuals, including himself, where the status of such interpersonal bonds is determined by his personal ethics. The ESI is very confident in evaluating the ethical or moral qualities, and their consistency, of other people as well of himself.
ESIs interact most favorably with LIEs
(For a more complete description, go to: http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=ESI
YOUR ANALYSIS (Vertical line = Average)
You scored 15% on ILE, higher than 1% of your peers.
You scored 47% on LII, higher than 22% of your peers.
You scored 44% on ESE, higher than 51% of your peers.
You scored 44% on SEI, higher than 26% of your peers.
You scored 28% on SLE, higher than 14% of your peers.
You scored 63% on LSI, higher than 88% of your peers.
You scored 68% on EIE, higher than 89% of your peers.
You scored 58% on IEI, higher than 58% of your peers.
You scored 58% on SEE, higher than 90% of your peers.
You scored 83% on ESI, higher than 99% of your peers.
You scored 60% on LIE, higher than 83% of your peers.
You scored 49% on ILI, higher than 34% of your peers.
You scored 44% on IEE, higher than 36% of your peers.
You scored 67% on EII, higher than 80% of your peers.
You scored 44% on LSE, higher than 48% of your peers.
You scored 36% on SLI, higher than 12% of your peers.
The Analyst (LII)
42% ILE, 66% LII, 38% ESE, 50% SEI, 35% SLE, 58% LSI, 34% EIE, 57% IEI, 35% SEE, 56% ESI, 42% LIE, 62% ILI, 43% IEE, 61% EII, 46% LSE and 55% SLI!
LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP
The Psychologist (IEE)
92% IEE
73% EII
65% SLI
64% SEE
63% ILE
57% SEI
51% ILI
48% LSE
47% LII
44% IEI
43% ESE
40% LIE
35% SLE
35% EIE
34% ESI
8% LSI
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
Not bad, seems most people get their self-typing. And I didn't try this time to influence it
The Psychologist (IEE)
70% ILE, 56% LII, 41% ESE, 51% SEI, 42% SLE, 17% LSI, 31% EIE, 44% IEI, 55% SEE, 30% ESI, 46% LIE, 59% ILI, 83% IEE, 69% EII, 56% LSE and 58% SLI!
Last edited by Reficulris; 04-20-2015 at 05:29 PM.
With a lot of tests i've got to like "lie" about extroversion/introversion.
questions like "do you need to get away from people after prolonged contact" for instance don't describe any of the introverted im's but are still commonplace in tests.
If I don't influence most tests i'll get IEI anytime, and i'm pretty sure most people by now agree that Ne base is much more likely than Ni base for me.
When I take a personality typing test, i tend to approach each with curiosity and a 'clean slate'. I'm curious what the test maker is testing for, what the answers will result in according to the test maker, etc. One of the best ways for me to do this is to just answer as honestly as I can, and as if I've never heard of socionics. Often the questions will show oddities, especially ones with multiple things being described in one answer. Like this test. There were a few questions that had more than two descriptions in an answer, a portion might fit but the rest doesn't. So then I have to figure out which fits more or stronger. Also, errors like you mentioned, conflating object/field as social energy interactions. Imo, this is a reflection of the strength and/or trustworthiness of the test, and the test maker's understanding.
I know that people use such tests to try to test their own understanding, figuring out what each answer corresponds to, etc. And some to try to 'prove' their self-typing. Thanks for adding 'trying to correct for the errors' you perceive.
Last edited by anndelise; 04-20-2015 at 09:39 PM. Reason: Fixed , into '
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
Yeah, i have the same approach initially. I'll do a test without influencing it. But usually i'll get IEI and then I'll "correct" for this particular dimention.
I'm not sure, i mean for all i know i'm IEI, but some ways people ask for introversion/extroversion are clearly flawed..
Social introversion/extroversion does not equal introverted base extroverted base.
The Artisan (SLI)
76% SLI
74% SLE
74% LSE
65% LSI
61% ILI
59% SEE
58% ESI
51% LIE
47% ILE
42% ESE
40% IEE
32% SEI
31% EII
30% LII
27% EIE
26% IEI
p . . . a . . . n . . . d . . . o . . . r . . . a
trad metalz | (more coming)
Last edited by Enters Laughing; 03-07-2016 at 10:43 PM.
this test sucks, it way underestimates my infjness.
http://www.helloquizzy.com/results/t...37&var_IEI=-16
The Seeker (ILE)
http://www.helloquizzy.com/results/t...=25&var_IEI=-3
82% ILE
69% LII
66% ILI
59% IEE
58% SLI
57% EII
54% SLE
53% LSE
50% LIE
47% SEI
47% IEI
40% SEE
38% LSI
34% ESE
31% EIE
26% ESI
"utilises Gulenko + Meged & Ovcharov subtype descriptions"
You may skip this test as another pseudo-socionics bullshit.
The Enterpriser (LIE)
35% ILE, 56% LII, 33% ESE, 28% SEI, 30% SLE, 51% LSI, 56% EIE, 40% IEI, 42% SEE, 54% ESI, 80% LIE, 67% ILI, 47% IEE, 59% EII, 57% LSE and 56% SLI!
Redid it, similar results
52% ILE, 55% LII, 43% ESE, 49% SEI, 78% SLE, 92% LSI, 44% EIE, 56% IEI, 42% SEE, 59% ESI, 43% LIE, 54% ILI, 17% IEE, 31% EII, 42% LSE and 56% SLI!
Lol:
You scored 78% on SLE, higher than 97% of your peers.
You scored 92% on LSI, higher than 100% of your peers.
The Observer (ILI)
38% ILE, 48% LII, 10% ESE, 29% SEI, 44% SLE, 58% LSI, 53% EIE, 69% IEI, 56% SEE, 69% ESI, 75% LIE, 85% ILI, 49% IEE, 49% EII, 32% LSE and 45% SLI!
There were quite a few questions that I answered "unsure". At the moment the most possible types for me seem to be ILI/EII/ESI though
Got ILI. Figured I would
Those subtype descriptions were used in order to get the strongest flavour of a type in relation to the other three options, e.g. the first question was between LSI (Ti-subtype), SEE (Se-subtype), EII (Fi-subtype), and ILE (Ne-subtype). Whether or not I or anybody else agrees with subtypes, those descriptions were a good resource to pilfer in my view to give four distinctive options to choose from (five if you consider "I relate to none of the above statements, or cannot decide between them." a distinctive option, which I do.
The fact that you included "cannot decide" as an option makes this test heads over others.
Seems the test thinks I am an IEI
47% ILE, 62% LII, 31% ESE, 60% SEI, 47% SLE, 62% LSI, 51% EIE, 81% IEI, 40% SEE, 51% ESI, 47% LIE, 65% ILI, 40% IEE, 57% EII, 26% LSE and 44% SLI!
-
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
I'm EII
-
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 Observer (ILI)
30% ILE, 64% LII, 32% ESE, 51% SEI, 24% SLE, 58% LSI, 30% EIE, 58% IEI, 40% SEE, 68% ESI, 44% LIE, 72% ILI, 47% IEE, 72% EII, 47% LSE and 66% SLI!
Too close. SLE and ExE being the lowest scoring seems good though.
Because it might suggest (other explanations are possible) that the test was not sufficient for test-takers to having their personality accurately recorded in Socionics form. There are numerous ways of dividing up the types into fours or twos not utilised in the test, and there is certainly a possibility that not having a sufficient number of variations and/or well-defined question statements could introduce a bias into the test (it was partly for this reason I was uncertain of the extent to which revisions of previous tests I made should be shortened (these revisions generally appeared in subsequent tests, with the except of when I was tinkering with whether or not to have one or two temperament questions).
Also, the manner of scoring is of some importance: I have not been consistent in the scoring between one block of questions or another (whether based on four statements or two, or whether based directly on some aspect of Model-A or not). The four (or five if you include the neutral answer) statement questions are generally scored in such a way that if you say choose option A, it might give you +8 for LSE, +8 for LIE, +4 for SLI, +4 for ILI, -8 for IEI...etc. ...but the two statement questions don't have that. There are also if I recall some questions that have scoring in terms of +8, +4, +2, -2, -4, -8 (I think ones involving Hidden Agenda descriptions). I think there were other instances where I felt the descriptions were not adequate to suggest a partial propensity or an avid opposition also. There are also questions where the range of scorings for each type in one block of questions is different for the range for other questions (probably not by more than about 20%: I think some questions had a range of 20 (the temperament ones?), and others a range of 16). Having questions on something like temperaments is also potentially something of an issue, as it may be of questionable significance, and/or it may dilute the individual's result away from what is more crucial about Model-A, which could point individuals in the wrong direction.
Ideally, I would greatly like to optimise the test further by removing redundant or inferior questions and putting in new ones. Having long and short variants would also be nice, as well as having it scored in an optimal way, and properly programmed somewhere else (not something I can do).
if someone or a group of people (I am thinking of @Jack Oliver Aaron and WSS especially) would like to create some uber-test, I can get them some info on the scoring (perhaps let them having my helloquizzy account details) and maybe any further insights I might have...take the whole thing if you like, it is just parts of descriptions painstakingly copied-and-pasted from elsewhere over many hours after all .
15 months later:
The Romantic (IEI)
28% ILE, 43% LII, 34% ESE, 68% SEI, 28% SLE, 51% LSI, 61% EIE, 87% IEI, 57% SEE, 74% ESI, 40% LIE, 66% ILI, 49% IEE, 56% EII, 13% LSE and 47% SLI!
YOUR ANALYSIS (Vertical line = Average)
ILE Distribution
You scored 28% on ILE, higher than 7% of your peers.
LII Distribution
You scored 43% on LII, higher than 13% of your peers.
ESE Distribution
You scored 34% on ESE, higher than 25% of your peers.
SEI Distribution
You scored 68% on SEI, higher than 93% of your peers.
SLE Distribution
You scored 28% on SLE, higher than 16% of your peers.
LSI Distribution
You scored 51% on LSI, higher than 53% of your peers.
EIE Distribution
You scored 61% on EIE, higher than 86% of your peers.
IEI Distribution
You scored 87% on IEI, higher than 98% of your peers.
SEE Distribution
You scored 57% on SEE, higher than 88% of your peers.
ESI Distribution
You scored 74% on ESI, higher than 96% of your peers.
LIE Distribution
You scored 40% on LIE, higher than 19% of your peers.
ILI Distribution
You scored 66% on ILI, higher than 76% of your peers.
IEE Distribution
You scored 49% on IEE, higher than 57% of your peers.
EII Distribution
You scored 56% on EII, higher than 50% of your peers.
LSE Distribution
You scored 13% on LSE, higher than 2% of your peers.
SLI Distribution
You scored 47% on SLI, higher than 31% of your peers.
“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
The Mediator (SEI)
35% ILE, 49% LII, 59% ESE, 76% SEI,
35% SLE, 52% LSI, 60% EIE, 75% IEI,
49% SEE, 62% ESI, 26% LIE, 47% ILI,
48% IEE, 56% EII, 25% LSE and 48% SLI!
top four results: SEI (76%), IEI (75%), ESI (62%), EIE (60%)
But the problem of majority of tests isn't within them. Unless you can make them fully interactive with explanations, examples and stuff-the thing is that in order for a test to have any value, it must be reviewed by a living person who spent some time with his / her client(even if that is as miniscule as 30 minutes).
The main problem is the HUGE HORRIBLE self bias we all have. Even with a perfectly explained and conducted test, one can fall prey to a bout of self bias. Or like a link aylen put said: "I remembered that I saved 3$ before few days by optimising what I really want. So I clicked super logical and efficient. The very fact that I splurged like all hell 15 other times this month...meh who cares about that, right?" THAT is your enemy. GL fighting it. You'll need it if you're to develop a proper test.