Try this socionics test - ru.laser.ru

[Myst]

Avoidance of conflict and disputes could just as easily be simple avoidance of Se though. Se-devaluers, per every description I've read, won't gravitate to conflict.

It'll fit an EII more than an ESI-Se, sure. Still, Ethics and Introversion definitely affect that strongly.

The specific examples given were things like battle scenes, aggressive team sports, other loud demonstrations. Enjoyment of these seems like it would have no real relationship to Si, and if anything what they'd match best is raucous Beta quadra values (FeSe). Even there only weakly.

The examples were given as "spectacles". I guess similar to the idea of "Participation in violent physical activities where such fights may take place, as in some sports, are motivated not by those fights themselves but by the stimulating sensations those activities generate, such as the release of adrenaline"? (Wikisocion, SEI composite description)

To me these do make sense based on the SLI girl I've known. She's adventurous for reasons like this, just simply enjoying the sensations rather than focusing on the active extraverted component of acquiring/achieving some material desire/goal (which does not happen at the same time as enjoyment/consummation of sensations/things).

[Nanooka]

It'll fit an EII more than an ESI-Se, sure. Still, Ethics and Introversion definitely affect that strongly.

I would think most ILEs, LIIs, IEEs SEIs, SLIs would gravitate away from conflict if it's possible to do so, despite not being EII. Like if there's no strong disagreement that makes them argue, where more important priorities like (for Alpha NT at least) logic-chopping things that flat-out don't make sense kick in. Disdain for tension is typically described of Se-superego, and Si-base types are generally described as coming off somewhat soft.

Possibly not xSEs though, they're often described as having a sense of machismo that the other Ne/Si valuers generally lack.

The examples were given as "spectacles". I guess similar to the idea of "Participation in violent physical activities where such fights may take place, as in some sports, are motivated not by those fights themselves but by the stimulating sensations those activities generate, such as the release of adrenaline"? (Wikisocion, SEI composite description)

Huh. That's actually really interesting, thanks for the link.

I still would say it's a bad question to lump under Si though, because that just adds even more fuel to "there are so many reasons for enjoying these things." Se ego types generally do as well, and they match Beta quadra values well too. Framing them as "spectacles" sounds like influence from an Fe sort of showmanship focus, "all the world's a stage and we are merely players" and all. I'd think it would match FeSe just as much as FeSi.

[Myst]

I would think most ILEs, LIIs, IEEs SEIs, SLIs would gravitate away from conflict if it's possible to do so, despite not being EII. Like if there's no strong disagreement that makes them argue, where more important priorities like pinpointing things that don't make sense kick in. Disdain for tension is typically described of Se-superego, and Si-base types are generally described as coming off somewhat soft.

Possibly not xSEs though, they're often described as having a sense of machismo that the other Ne/Si valuers generally lack.

Yeah, I'm just saying that it's also linked strongly with IxFx. And yeah I see Si base more soft than Se base, as mentioned in post #428.

Huh. That's actually really interesting, thanks for the link.

I still would say it's a bad question to lump under Si though, because that just adds even more fuel to "there are so many reasons for enjoying these things." Se ego types generally do as well, and they match Beta quadra values well too. Framing them as "spectacles" sounds like influence from an Fe sort of showmanship focus, and I'd think it would match FeSe just as much as FeSi.

Np

Yes there are many reasons for doing seemingly the same thing, people are complicated, such is our luck

As for FeSe: I don't really see EIE just enjoying the sensory spectacle for its own sake, if it can have some FeNi message to it then maybe I guess.

[Nanooka]

Yeah, I'm just saying that it's also linked strongly with IxFx.

Mhm. But if it's far more specific to EII than ESI, and at least as related to Se-devaluation so it's often not even Fi-related, then it seems like a really bad question to toss under the "Fi" section.

Yes there are many reasons for doing seemingly the same thing, people are complicated, such is our luck

That's why typology is so muddled. And maybe part of the fun.

As for FeSe: I don't really see EIE just enjoying the sensory spectacle for its own sake, if it can have some FeNi message to it then maybe I guess.

I could see an EIE enjoying the atmosphere of an intense sporting event, like a football or hockey game. Just like a metal concert, the two have similar atmospheres actually. It's less about the visible sensations there than about the crowd, but as they're part of the same spectacle they can be easily linked in our minds. I'd think many such EIEs would answer in the affirmative to that question.

[Myst]

Mhm. But if it's far more specific to EII than ESI, and at least as related to Se-devaluation so it's often not even Fi-related, then it seems like a really bad question to toss under the "Fi" section.

ESI-Fi is pretty conflict avoidant really... less than EII, but still a clear Fi influence in it.

I think it is often enough Fi related so it's a good question for the Fi section.

The weird translations were far worse.

That's why typology is so muddled. And maybe part of the fun.

I like psychology for its complexity, sure. It's frustrating tho' when I see typology simplifications...

I could see an EIE enjoying the atmosphere of an intense sporting event, like a football or hockey game. Just like a metal concert, the two have similar atmospheres actually. It's less about the visible sensations there than about the crowd, but as they're part of the same spectacle they can be easily linked in our minds. I'd think many such EIEs would answer in the affirmative to that question.

For me they are not linked in my mind but possibly the question is too ambiguous as translated. I wouldn't mind looking at the original test questions really if I knew Russian.

[Nanooka]

ESI-Fi is pretty conflict avoidant really... less than EII, but still a clear Fi influence in it.

ESI-Se also has a strong Fi influence, fittingly since that's their basic lens. But it's expressed in a very different way that isn't particularly conflict-avoidant, far as I can tell.

I think it is often enough Fi related so it's a good question for the Fi section.

I don't know about that. I'd think LIIs and ILEs would often answer affirmatively to it, they might be drawn into conflicts to correct perceived inaccuracies but they're instinctively generally stressed out by said conflict. It's never described as really invigorating them. They're Fi-superego, if it could just as easily fit someone who actively disdains Fi otherwise then it seems like a very poor gauge of Fi. There are far too many possible reasons for answering "2" or "3" to it.

The weird translations were far worse.

I'm not sure those were bad translations? Judging from the lack of type-relatedness in even questions that you thought make sense, it seems more like the creator was on crack and/or stupid.

I like psychology for its complexity, sure. It's frustrating tho' when I see typology simplifications...

Super frustrating, yeah.

[Myst]

ESI-Se also has a strong Fi influence, fittingly since that's their basic lens. But it's expressed in a very different way that isn't particularly conflict-avoidant, far as I can tell.

The idea is that the stronger the Fi, the stronger the tendency will be, hence my mentioning ESI-Fi over ESI-Se.

I don't know about that. I'd think LIIs and ILEs would often answer affirmatively to it, they might be drawn into conflicts to correct inaccuracies but they're instinctively generally stressed out by said conflict. It's never described as really invigorating them. They're Fi-superego, if it could just as easily fit someone who actively disdains Fi otherwise then it seems like a very poor gauge of Fi.

My reasoning is, there is more than one factor affecting this, yes, but Fi is one of the strongest factors affecting it. So the question belongs to this section alright to contribute to the overall score.

I'm not sure those were bad translations? Judging from the quality of even questions that you thought did make sense, it seems more like the creator was on crack and/or stupid.

Dunno but they definitely could be translation issues.

Maybe ask @mu4 as to why he likes this test? As soon as I showed it to him (a while ago) he was very excited about it for some reason and put it up here. I never got around to asking him as to what he saw as great in this test. I personally did find certain sections great adding to my understanding of things in a shockingly effective way but in other sections I do find some questions weird, so like I said, it could be translation issues or idk what it is.

[Slade]

Mhm. But if it's far more specific to EII than ESI, and at least as related to Se-devaluation so it's often not even Fi-related, then it seems like a really bad question to toss under the "Fi" section.

I agree with this, correlation with argumentativeness is much better fit under Se and has virtually nothing to do with Fi.

ESI-Fi is pretty conflict avoidant really... less than EII, but still a clear Fi influence in it.

No, they aren't. People like you tend to confuse people who don't want to engage in an argument for conflict avoidant when they aren't the same thing. ESI-Fi definitely aren't conflict avoidant, they may not enjoy an argument for it's own sake but they aren't types to shy away from one either.

I don't see how this is an argument for it being more strongly related to Se superego.

The statement was: "I prefer to make peace with people, avoid conflict and disputes."

Going by the theory, it's Fi>Ti and Ne>Se.

According to what theory? Where did you find this information?