The questionnaire has moved; the newest version can be found here.
The questionnaire has moved; the newest version can be found here.
Last edited by Exodus; 03-05-2021 at 08:09 PM.
Btw: please answer the questionnaire in a separate thread so as not to derail @Muddytextures
I'm very pleased with the results thus far. It seems to be working out pretty well in video format (Thanks @Economist!) When more people do it written I can see how it stacks up compared to the other written ones.
I moved some more questions up to the mandatory section -- before they were lasting about 35 minutes, which is a bit shorter than I would like. If you're doing it on video try to shoot for an hour or more if possible.
I'm still making small changes to the questions here and there, so if you're going to do the questionnaire please copy it from this thread directly.
Any input on the questions is also welcome. I get the impression that certain ones are considered vague, but maybe certain types wouldn't consider them to be -- so that in itself can be valuable information. Maybe I'll go look over past results more thoroughly but not making any guarantees...not getting paid for this
Last edited by Exodus; 04-21-2019 at 09:31 PM.
Yeeeeeeeeees it's in the sticky section. Very good! *praise praise*
Recommendations to video part
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...=1#post1096450
If you are not fluent in English - it's more reasonable to use your native language on video, where to tell about anything interesting for you for 10 min. And then place the answers to a questionnaire in English by text.
What thinks about video part thehotelambush, which has no comparable experience in typing by nonverbal, - does not matter.
My typing method involves a great deal of both verbal and nonverbal information, when available.
However, any individual socionist's understanding of nonverbal information can be highly intuitive and difficult to put into words. So I don't condone "well, I just looked at you and saw that you were an XXX based on nonverbal information" as a good argument.
@mu4 please add an introductory note on the form to the effect of
"Please answer the following questions in as much detail as possible. The idea here is to get a window into your thought process, what is important to you, how you see the world. The more you write the more accurate the typings you will get."
Also, since it's written the form should have ALL of the questions. If it only has the initial part then it might be best to just get rid of the form.
Changed the wording of the "what do you find to be a chore" question - it was leading to rather unoriginal responses ("chores").
But the questionnaire just ends up fleshing out autobiographical fact-fillers about people's lives. Thus, this questionnaire is terrible because it has absolutely nothing to do with cognition. At most, it gives some insight into user's Fi if you read between the lines well enough. An adequate questionnaire would have to be more intensive....the only real way to start eliciting differences between people's cognition is through more complex questions....the "what are your spiritual beliefs?" softballs have zero relevance to socionic type and, let's face it, amounts to your own Fi-lead navel-gazing.
Forgot to mention - I removed the "Tell me about yourself" question, most people were skipping it anyways.
Also clarified that the misconceptions are about things/the world, not you.
I've made some more updates to the questionnaire, moved some of the questions up to the required section. From now on the most up-to-date version will be hosted on my blog or one of my other sites (see my signature for the link). I also moved the decimal point (0.2 -> 2.0); there were fewer changes needed than I expected.
-
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 first two or three are covered by the question "What goals, aspirations, or plans do you have for the future? How did you come to have them?"
I suppose I could add something like "How have you succeeded or failed at your goals?" though this may not be helpful for typing younger people. Your last question also isn't really indicative of strength in Ni, if anything the opposite - actually an Ni dominant (for example) would not be especially likely to actually realize their goals in the real world due to lacking Se. Usually people will comment on how they have or haven't been successful in the process of answering this question though.
I have been trying to think if there are any particular IM elements that the questionnaire doesn't address as well - maybe ethics more so, which is why I added the following questions in v3:
How do you feel about attention? Do you seek it out?
Your friend bursts into tears. What do you do? How does it make you feel?
What is your sense of humor like? Do you joke around a lot?
-
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
How about use a phrase like when considering are you inclined to say "I know what's going to happen."
Or "I don't know how I will feel." -this indicates that the person can not see how their feelings will be in the future.
-
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
This is too specific. There are plenty of Ni types that don't use these exact terms, and even if they did they might not remember doing so in the process of answering a questionnaire.
It could maybe be turned into something like "Are you prone to uncertainty?" or "How sure are you about yourself and your way of seeing things?"
Can't you make your own thread instead of spamming this one?
My questionnaire will now be permanently located on sedecology: https://www.sedecology.com/questionnaire
I am trying to centralize all my stuff there; currently only the blog needs to be integrated.
Sorry, did not realise that it is just about your questionnaire! I will delete my post. And you delete your quote, please.
School of Associative socionics: http://socionics4you.com/