Thread: New to Socionics... test results seem vague

1. New to Socionics... test results seem vague

Someone commented on my YouTube channel about Socionics. It peaked my interest, so I took a test, and now I'm here.

The test was on sociotype.com, and this was the result (minimum questions answered):
ILI-0 NiTe (INTp)

IEE (ENFp): 100% as likely as ILI.
SLI (ISTp): 98% as likely as ILI.
EII (INFj): 97% as likely as ILI.

It perplexes me that the result is 100% one or the other, and a small percentage of it possibly being two other types.

2. Try this one, it's much better: https://www.aimtoknow.com/test_beta

3. You could figure out the actual percentage likelihood for each type if only it gave you "y: % as likely as x" for all the types.

b = a
c = .98a
d = .97a
e = ??a
..
..
p = ???a

a+b+c+d+e...+p = 1

a+.98a+.97a+??a+???a = 1

Based on those types only it'd be inaccurately 3.95a=1 -> a = 25% -> 25% ILI, 25% IEE, etc.

4. That test is garbage Engrish. I got LIE, like usual. It means they think you're delta of some kind if you aren't ILI.

5. Originally Posted by qaz00
Try this one, it's much better: https://www.aimtoknow.com/test_beta
I seem to be unable to get different results on that test

20210417_024046.jpg

6. Originally Posted by TheLinquent
You'd better said the channel name.
Tests common accuracy is ~30-50%. If different tests give similar traits - those have higher chance to be correct.

> ILI-0 NiTe (INTp) IEE (ENFp): 100% as likely as ILI. SLI (ISTp): 98% as likely as ILI. EII (INFj): 97% as likely as ILI.

About mysterious numbers is better to ask test's author. It's funny as 4 most possible types are said as having almost equal possibility to be correct, and where 2 of them are not close to main version ILI.
I recommend the simple way - to forget about numbers and to take into account only the order of types in the list.

7. Originally Posted by RBRS
I seem to be unable to get different results on that test

20210417_024046.jpg

Do you mean the pictured (ILE) is always your leading type when you take this test?

In the socionics elements profile I'm guessing you scored - in order of usage: Ni > Ne > Te / Ti > Se > Fe > Fi > Si.
A high score in "generalised ideation" along with lower use of Si might have pushed your result to ILE.

The other graph that the test produces compares your result to those of an average ILE; I'd expect to see a difference in your valuing of Si, compared to theirs.

What I've noticed with other results from this test is that the least-likely type (SEI on your chart) most often corresponds with the conflicting type.

Perhaps a slightly different interpretation of a question determining static/dynamic would alter your highest scoring type. Ultimately, I wonder if that is a flaw in this type of test.

8. @thistle I personally have three most plausible types (LIE, ILI & ILE, with ILE not fitting intertype relations at all).

The problem with tests is that human motivation, or not even that but "information processing" cannot be measured with either a scale of two binary behavioral statements whose answer can vary from self-perception, education...(as it is the case with OP's test) nor from a scale of numbers for a specific statement (with such binary options as "I tend to see the glass half empty/half full" or statements as "From time to time, I get so angry I want to kick something" that seem to me as a similar thing to typing through liking Mc'Donalds more than Burger King).

In that test I practically always test as ILI or ILE, with much more ILE than ILI, but I sincerely see it as not very important.

9. How do you get that 30-50%? Made up? That's why I called it garbage engrish.

Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•