easyTIM : socionic assessment system

[machintruc]

I created a socionic test.

Version 0.1 contains 70 questions. 40 are based on Jung dichotomies, and 30 on Reinin dichotomies.
Version 0.1.5 contains 54 questions, with more complex factors.
Version 0.1.6 contains 50 questions, with modified questions and factors, and removed some irrelevant questions.
Version 0.1.7 contains 50 questions, with a slightly modified code.

Instead of returning a single type, easyTIM returns probabilities for having each type.

http://www.socioniquefrance.power-he...ku.php?id=test

This test is not really accurate yet, I'll do better versions later, by modifying factors or questions.

[Slacker]

It says I'm most likely ILE. Dunno why.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[FDG]

i got SEE, IEI and ILE as highest

[Slacker]

I don't remember all of mine but our top three (Diana's and mine) are in the same order.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[snegledmaca]

ILE : 21
LIE : 22
IEE : 20.5
EIE : 12.5
SLE : 21.5
LSE : 11.5
SEE : 19
ESE : 20
ILI : 19.5
LII : 11.5
IEI : 17
EII : 20
SLI : 17
LSI : 16
SEI : 20.5
ESI : 10.5
Answers : 01000010111101010010011101110011111100000000011111 100001011111011101110

Over 20: LIE, SLE, ILE, IEE, SEI
Bottom: LII, LSE, EIE

[machintruc]

It says I'm most likely ILE. Dunno why.

The factors are not well differentiated yet, this is why this test is inaccurate.

You can see the source code. There are 32 factors for each question (but for now all are .50).

For example :

data "You often lack initiative."
data .00, .00, .00, .00, .00, .00, .00, .00, .50, .50, .50, .50, .50, .50, .50, .50
data .50, .50, .50, .50, .50, .50, .50, .50, .00, .00, .00, .00, .00, .00, .00, .00

if answer positive, adds .50 for all introvert types.
if answer negative, adds .50 for all extrovert types.

[oyburger]

I closed it out before I could copy it but I got:
24 for LII
23 for ILI
and 23.something for ILE

The rest I don't recall

[machintruc]

I closed it out before I could copy it but I got:
24 for LII
23 for ILI
and 23.something for ILE

The rest I don't recall

check your results.txt file

[machintruc]

I took that test myself...

ILE : 17
LIE : 20
IEE : 13.5
EIE : 21.5
SLE : 13.5
LSE : 19.5
SEE : 10
ESE : 9
ILI : 21.5
LII : 31.5
IEI : 16
EII : 19
SLI : 17
LSI : 16
SEI : 15.5
ESI : 19.5
Answers : 11111001001111100000010001111100001111111011100001 111110100011000101100

[Creepy-bg]

damn! it works good 4 u!

[machintruc]

Answers : 01000010111101010010011101110011111100000000011111 100001011111011101110

Over 20: LIE, SLE, ILE, IEE, SEI
Bottom: LII, LSE, EIE

I analysed your answers. It seems you could be SEI...

SEI is often confused with IEI, because they are both social-smiling-easygoing types. I attend a catholic association, where we can find a lot of SEI's. (that association is itself SEI).

In my school, there was a pretty girl which I mistyped as IEI, and realised later she was really SEI.

I didn't say you're necessarily SEI... I can be wrong...

[UDP]

isn't it supposed to be "head in clouds" instead of "head on clouds"?

Though I'm sure many can identify with both

[Creepy-bg]

isn't it supposed to be "head in clouds" instead of "head on clouds"?

Though I'm sure many can identify with both

he's French... you gotta give him some leeway

[UDP]

That is true. (I did say it to be a bit of a tosser, though )

Anyway,

My highest results were
LII 26
LSE 21
ILI 21

and lowest for
ESE 11.5

[rockclimber]

top 3
EII 21.5
ESE 20.5
EIE 20

lowest
SLE 12

[raisonpure]

Confusing questions. Interesting that I've also considered all the types in italics -- except SEI -- before.

ILE : 15.5
LIE : 18.5
IEE : 17
EIE : 19
SLE : 15
LSE : 15
SEE : 14.5
ESE : 17.5
ILI : 19
LII : 19
IEI : 18.5
EII : 21.5
[s:8025da8d83]SLI : 13.5[/s:8025da8d83]
LSI : 16.5
SEI : 19
ESI : 21
Answers : 01110010001101100101110110100110001110111101011101 111111011110011101010

[eunice]

Top 3
IEI 23.5
ILE 21.5
IEE 21

Lowest
LSI 10.5

ILE : 21.5
LIE : 15.5
IEE : 21
EIE : 20
SLE : 13
LSE : 14
SEE : 16.5
ESE : 14.5
ILI : 20
LII : 19
IEI : 23.5
EII : 19.5
SLI : 14.5
LSI : 10.5
SEI : 18
ESI : 19
Answers : 10101011001111100000110100000011110100100111100011 111001100001111101110

[Quirk Satellite Div.]

Even though I am relatively new to to studying Socionics theory and haven't been properly typed except through my own self-analysis, I thought I would still chime in with some results, despite in my case, the inability to assess the testing application against other reliable typing data.

ILE : 22
LIE : 17
IEE : 17.5
EIE : 15.5
SLE : 16.5
LSE : 18.5
SEE : 14
ESE : 11
ILI : 22.5
LII : 22.5
IEI : 20
EII : 15
SLI : 18
LSI : 15
SEI : 17.5
ESI : 17.5

*First post!

[implied]

ILE : 16
LIE : 18
IEE : 17.5
EIE : 14.5
SLE : 17.5
LSE : 16.5
SEE : 15
ESE : 17
ILI : 21.5
LII : 18.5
IEI : 17
EII : 17
SLI : 16
LSI : 20
SEI : 19.5
ESI : 18.5
Answers : 11001000011101011001110000110111101110110110111111 111110111101110101000

top 5: ILI, LSI, SEI, ESI, LII
bottom 5: EIE, SEE, ILE, LSE


oops. i didn't like the lack of a gap between types so i took it again.

ILE : 16.5
LIE : 19.5
IEE : 17.5
EIE : 17.5
SLE : 17
LSE : 17
SEE : 16
ESE : 17
ILI : 21
LII : 21
IEI : 18
EII : 19
SLI : 16.5
LSI : 19.5
SEI : 19.5
ESI : 19.5
Answers : 01111110001111111110010111101011001110110101111011 111101101010101001000


not any better, really!

[machintruc]

That is true. (I did say it to be a bit of a tosser, though )

Anyway,

My highest results were
LII 26
LSE 21
ILI 21

and lowest for
ESE 11.5

does it work only for LII's ?

[machintruc]

Data source code, which contains question strings and factors, is now fully public and will be recompiled periodically.

One can now edit it easily here :

http://www.socion-france.co.nr/wiki/...?id=easytim_en

[Exodus]

That is true. (I did say it to be a bit of a tosser, though )

Anyway,

My highest results were
LII 26
LSE 21
ILI 21

and lowest for
ESE 11.5

does it work only for LII's ?

ILE : 18
LIE : 20
IEE : 17
EIE : 22 <= hmm.
SLE : 19.5
LSE : 20.5
SEE : 14.5
ESE : 14.5
ILI : 20.5
LII : 25.5
IEI : 11.5
EII : 15.5
SLI : 17
LSI : 15
SEI : 16
ESI : 17
Answers : 10111111110111101010000101111111001111110110000100 111110100011000001110


The questions were very transparent to me (except for the last one - what is that one supposed to indicate?). Maybe I'll try it on some people who don't know socionics. Can you make a WWW version? It would be much easier.

[machintruc]

That is true. (I did say it to be a bit of a tosser, though )

Anyway,

My highest results were
LII 26
LSE 21
ILI 21

and lowest for
ESE 11.5

does it work only for LII's ?

ILE : 18
LIE : 20
IEE : 17
EIE : 22 <= hmm.
SLE : 19.5
LSE : 20.5
SEE : 14.5
ESE : 14.5
ILI : 20.5
LII : 25.5
IEI : 11.5
EII : 15.5
SLI : 17
LSI : 15
SEI : 16
ESI : 17
Answers : 10111111110111101010000101111111001111110110000100 111110100011000001110


The questions were very transparent to me (except for the last one - what is that one supposed to indicate?). Maybe I'll try it on some people who don't know socionics. Can you make a WWW version? It would be much easier.

I began to write it in PHP or JavaScript but it would be harder to set and edit complex factors, because this is a multifactor test, like Lytov's one. I decided to create that test in the Win32 format. Except that there are factors for EACH type, for positive AND negative answers. That means, 32 factors.

I recently uploaded the 0.1.5 version which contains only 54 questions but with more complex factors.

[XoX]

My top 6:
1. ILI 18.99
2. LII 17.79
3. IEE 15.30
4. EII 15.19
5. SEI 15.00
6. LSI 14.70

My worst 6:
1. SEE 9.09
2. ESE 10.50
3. SLI 12.90
4. ILE 12.30
5. LSE 13.29
6. IEI 13.39

My percentages are pretty low as nothing is over 20. Also the top-6 and low-6 are not completely symmetric. I'm not sure if they should be?

About the questions. I couldn't really decide on narrator vs taciturn questions. I went for narrator in most of them but had I went for taciturn then the taciturn types would have been a bit higher and narrator types lower. E.g. with the taciturn answers LII > ILI where with the narrator answers ILI > LII. Anyways yet another test giving me ILI. All the test do this so I am probably quite consistent in my self perception of being one, lol. IEE was quite high there too being third. IEI and ILE were not very high at all. I'm waiting for future versions of the software to see how much the result changes.

[Joy]

ILE : 13.69
LIE : 16.7
IEE : 12.35
EIE : 13.55
SLE : 13.94
LSE : 15.94
SEE : 8.1
ESE : 11.1
ILI : 16.39
LII : 17.64
IEI : 10.14
EII : 12.69
SLI : 11.95
LSI : 15.2
SEI : 10.5
ESI : 10.85

In order that would be:

Test Results from easyTIM 0.1.5

INTj : 17.64
ENTj : 16.7
INTp : 16.39
ESTj : 15.94
ISTj : 15.2
ESTp : 13.94
ENTp : 13.69
ENFj : 13.55
INFj : 12.69
ENFp : 12.35
ISTp : 11.95
ESFj : 11.1
ISFj : 10.85
ISFp : 10.5
INFp : 10.14
ESFp : 8.1

I must say I'm just a little surprised by the results. The top result is a type I've never even seriously considered (though in the past year I've test INTj on about 25% of the socionics tests I've taken).

In bold are the types that I've given serious consideration to. Please note that ENTp and ISFp were when I thought Se was Te, Te was Ti, Fi was Fe, Ni was Ne, and was in an EXTREMELY stressful part of my life. I've not considered that I could be an Alpha since I had any understanding at all of functions.

[XoX]

ILE : 13.69
LIE : 16.7
IEE : 12.35
EIE : 13.55
SLE : 13.94
LSE : 15.94
SEE : 8.1
ESE : 11.1
ILI : 16.39
LII : 17.64
IEI : 10.14
EII : 12.69
SLI : 11.95
LSI : 15.2
SEI : 10.5
ESI : 10.85

SEE being so low you look more ILI than LIE based on this, lol.

[Joy]

ILE : 13.69
LIE : 16.7
IEE : 12.35
EIE : 13.55
SLE : 13.94
LSE : 15.94
SEE : 8.1
ESE : 11.1
ILI : 16.39
LII : 17.64
IEI : 10.14
EII : 12.69
SLI : 11.95
LSI : 15.2
SEI : 10.5
ESI : 10.85

SEE being so low you look more ILI than LIE based on this, lol.

lol yeah... except that I'm too "greedy" to be an INTj (according to comparison with other Alphas) and ESFj is certainly not my dual.

[vague]

Accurate.

ILE: 14.75
LIE: 11.85
IEE: 16.6
EIE: 15.9
SLE: 9.89
LSE: 9.19
SEE: 13.44
ESE: 10.94
ILI: 18.45
LII: 16.25
IEI: 21.7
EII: 18.2
SLI: 16.1
LSI: 12.3
SEI: 17.64
ESI: 14.35

[FDG]

My top 6:
1. ILI 18.99
2. LII 17.79
3. IEE 15.30
4. EII 15.19
5. SEI 15.00
6. LSI 14.70

My worst 6:
1. SEE 9.09
2. ESE 10.50
3. SLI 12.90
4. ILE 12.30
5. LSE 13.29
6. IEI 13.39

My percentages are pretty low as nothing is over 20. Also the top-6 and low-6 are not completely symmetric. I'm not sure if they should be?

About the questions. I couldn't really decide on narrator vs taciturn questions. I went for narrator in most of them but had I went for taciturn then the taciturn types would have been a bit higher and narrator types lower. E.g. with the taciturn answers LII > ILI where with the narrator answers ILI > LII. Anyways yet another test giving me ILI. All the test do this so I am probably quite consistent in my self perception of being one, lol. IEE was quite high there too being third. IEI and ILE were not very high at all. I'm waiting for future versions of the software to see how much the result changes.

In all honesty, I must be on some kind of edge between both asker/declarer and negativist/positivist, because I seem to switch between the two depending on who I am talking about (generally to balance things out). I think I'm asker when positivist and declarer when negativist.

[Expat]

Test Results from easyTIM 0.1.5
ILE : 13.59
LIE : 18.8
IEE : 15.9
EIE : 14.84
SLE : 14.79
LSE : 14.39
SEE : 9.79
ESE : 14.74
ILI : 17.59
LII : 16.75
IEI : 12.09
EII : 17.8
SLI : 11.2
LSI : 16.85
SEI : 13.3
ESI : 11.85
Answers : 10100011101011110000010011001111001111000011111111 1011
Expected TIM : LIE (100)

Top 5: LIE, EII, ILI, LSI, LII
Bottom 5: SEE, SLI, IEI, SEI, LSE

I think a problem is giving so much weight to the Asker/Declarer dichotomy. In my case it works perfectly because, IRL, I am very obviously a Declarer when interacting with people. No question. For others, it is more blurred as FDG said.

[machintruc]

My percentages are pretty low as nothing is over 20. Also the top-6 and low-6 are not completely symmetric. I'm not sure if they should be?

These are not really percentages. They are more "scores" for each type. There are 32 factors for each question, and 16 main factors for the overall test, one for each type. A positive or negative answer will add positive or negative question factors to global test factors. When the test complete, they will be displayed on a raw form.

These factors are not normalised yet. They are calculated manually and from subjective expectancy. It seems that my test has currently 30-50% reliability (either that or I'm pessimistic). 54 questions are insufficient IMO, and I can't yet pretend that one day my test will be more accurate than Lytov's one.

I think a problem is giving so much weight to the Asker/Declarer dichotomy.

I'll probably add more questions based on EISNTFjp traits, maybe on information elements, in the next version. This will "balance" that weight. I realised I was pretty excessive with derivative traits.

[aestrivex]

the format of this test is extremely well constructed. i would go so far as to say this is already the second best socionics test i've ever taken, second only to dmitri's. i think that if the questions are structured intelligently this could be a test that could be extremely accurate and possibly relied upon to give good results.

my results:

ILI 21.24
SLE 17.25
SLI 16.50
LII 15.89
ILE 15.10
SEI 15.10
LSI 14.64
IEE 14.00
LIE 13.84
LSE 13.39
IEI 13.25
EII 10.84
SEE 10.34
EIE 9.3
ESI 9.25
ESE 8.40


i would go ahead and take your source and make a number of tweaks and revisions to this test if i had time, but right now i'm in boston and am rather busy, so i'll just throw out some general observations.

you make way too much use of dichotomies. one or two questions on some dichotomies is acceptable, given that they're phrased in a way which makes sense according to the particular dichotomy. most of this test did that, staying fairly faithful to reinin's own definitions of the dichotomies, but it would be very easy to misconstrue certain dichotomies. you had a lot of taciturn/narrator questions, in addition to a few positivist/negativist questions that seemed kind of excessive. i think it would be more appropriate two offer one to three well-thought out questions on each and every one of reinin's dichotomies as well as a myriad of functional and observed behavioral questions in the context of this test.

[Jonathan]

I have some sort of irrational fear of executing an EXE. Even though you seem trustworthy, I can't get myself to hit the button. Is there a Basic compiler/interpreter you'd recommend that works with your code? It's not VB, so it doesn't work in Visual Studio. I tried FreeBASIC but that didn't work either. I'm too lazy to convert it to VB.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[machintruc]

I have some sort of irrational fear of executing an EXE. Even though you seem trustworthy, I can't get myself to hit the button. Is there a Basic compiler/interpreter you'd recommend that works with your code? It's not VB, so it doesn't work in Visual Studio. I tried FreeBASIC but that didn't work either. I'm too lazy to convert it to VB.

Normally, it would compile correctly on the last FB version. You can also open the .BAS file in FBIDE as well.

It either seems to compile well in QB 4.5, or QBASIC 1.1 ! (but with a slightly different RESULTS.TXT output)

[Expat]

I have some sort of irrational fear of executing an EXE. Even though you seem trustworthy, I can't get myself to hit the button.

Hmmmm --

[machintruc]

from http://www.socionics.us/socioniko/en...ov-visual.html :

The extreme case of rationality means ignoring the reality. A very rational pupil can accurately solve a series of 20 arithmetic tasks and not mention that the half of them required multiplication instead of addition. An extremely rational person is “abnormally normal” in his expressions: he judges not “what things are” but “what they must be” in his opinion. This is why Rationals usually show increased lie rate in questionnaires (while being quite sure of their sincerity). Rationality strengthens both T and F functions. For this reason sometimes Rational F-types in practice may exhibit greater logic and business skills than some Irrational T-types.

interesting...

[implied]

Test Results from easyTIM 0.1.5
ILE : 11.6
LIE : 14.8
IEE : 15
EIE : 13.25
SLE : 15.94
LSE : 15.24
SEE : 10.35
ESE : 13.3
ILI : 20.39
LII : 18.09
IEI : 14.4
EII : 16.55
SLI : 14.85
LSI : 17.64
SEI : 18.64
ESI : 15.95
Answers : 11111010111101110111100001100011101011001001101111 1101
Expected TIM : INTp (100%)

same results, basically.

what did you mean by "emotional" versus "sensitive"?