Does Socionics have a validated or "official" test such as the MBTI?
I did some web searches trying to find if Socionics has validated instruments like the MBTI, but couldn't find if it does have any. I'm guessing they exist in Russia at least and am curious if anyone has ever taken one. Maybe self-report tests aren't viewed as a valid way to type people within the Socionics community?
BTW, I'm not interested in debating the validity of the MBTI as I know it has major faults in that area, but efforts are at least made to make it a valid test.
There is no socionics indicator.
The most commonly used test is the DarkAngelFireWolf69 one.
But usually each socionist has his/her method and does not rely on tests.
No official test, no official organisation, no official qualification exams, - nothing official.
There are 2 authors wich have given basic theory for everybody: Augustinavichiute and Jung. But many don't care much what they said as use anything they want besides that. Many ones use Reinin's dichotomies wich are in essence another typology at all.
Types examples: video bloggers, actors
VI, of course.Originally Posted by uncivilized
VI is currently the most valid indicator of type because it points to a realistic basis for its groupings. VI is a core part of Socionics. MBTI tests don't establish any basis in reality for its groupings. It only attempts to validate the universe that mbti has set up for itself. You could come up with tests like which character are you in a science fiction movie, where the questions are valid indicators for the character you are most like, but that doesn't validate the characters as actually having existed in reality. Likewise, anybody in the socionics community that opposes VI is, at the most, doing MBTI, not socionics.I'm guessing they exist in Russia at least and am curious if anyone has ever taken one. Maybe self-report tests aren't viewed as a valid way to type people within the Socionics community?
BTW, I'm not interested in debating the validity of the MBTI as I know it has major faults in that area, but efforts are at least made to make it a valid test.
The MBTI has one main issue as an instrument: the focus on dichotomies of types rather than presenting it as theoretical dichotomy with a continuous-ish spectrum of values in between.
Other than that, it lines up significantly with e.g. the five factor model.
But the instrument is separate from the theory -- MBTI's theory of functions is not validated. Only the indicator, which corresponds very very loosely at best to the functions it purports to predict. I favor re-interpreting the MBTI closer to its overlap with the FFM and prefer to think about the functions more or less separately.
As for socionics, the thing is I'm not in favor of turning it into a trait theory, so I'm not too enthusiastic about at least turning it into something like FFM etc. I don't think everything has to be based on empiricism and it's better perhaps to keep socionics as a more purely logical deductive theory, and what it can do in that scope, keep, and what it can't, just don't try to make it do too much.
Isn't Keirsey (paradoxically) the only remotely resembling statistically backed up theory. Socionics and to some extent MBTi are qualitative and extremely interconnected hierarchic systems. It takes long time understand, requires great deal of reflection etc. You can search some internal validation from other sources. Say neurology, psychology etc.
I think the process should comparison of several IE pairs such as base and suggestive
creative vs PoLR
etc
There are studies that compare such things as empathetic vs analytical mindsets.
But even this task is rather hard if you think about base vs demonstrative IEs or creative etc.
With 16 types and all the combinations that task is rather complicated considering that the hierarchy may look pretty much artificial as it can manifest differently among look alike types etc.
Keirsey way was much easier.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote