Inconsiderably Finite Indefinite Socionics Test

[nil]

As stupid as it sounds, I still don't totally "get" temperaments. I mean, I understand them in theory, but in practice things get blurry. For example, at first I was sure about IP, but my line of reasoning was very questionable: lazy as hell->IP . Now I'm wondering: If I really take a look at myself, I'm constantly "ready", even when I'm browsing the internet for example. I bounce my leg nervously all the time, I'm fidgety, kinda anxious, always thinking about what else I have to do...I just never do all these things .I get bursts of energy every half an hour and just nervously walk around the apartment or start dancing. But I'm somehow much more poised and calmer in public, otherwise people would think I'm crazy. But there's still always present inner tension and leg-bouncing.

Wth kinda temperament is that? Is that IP? Nervous, anxious, can't relax on the inside, doesn't do anything proactive on the outside Oh, and I walk extremely fast and want to murder people who walk (or do basic things) slowly . And don't want to go to sleep even though I'm half dead because there's so many interesting things to read and see, even if that means I will only sleep two hours (every day it's the same story). @Subteigh, you have to help me here

The EJ temperament's entire point is proactive movement. From Wikisocion:

"EJs are both dynamic and rational, so they see reality as in continuous, gradual, often imperceptible change. At the same time, an EJ has his own views of what reality "should" be. This inclines him to be quick to take action, normally using his leading function, in order to make sure things will remain, or become, as they should be, before change can get too far."

This is in contrast to IP temperament, which isn't readily inclined to take action at all until it becomes necessary to do so.

I personally think that the bullets in the temperament descriptions concerning fidgeting are psychological -> physiological nonsense and not worth much consideration. I also have a tendency to move about or nervously pace around (especially if I am trying to solve a problem), and be ready and anxious while waiting for something I know has to happen (which is often). At times, this will be something I have to do myself, and the longer I spend not doing it, the worse off mentally I become, past a certain threshold which I suppose is the amount of time I think it will take to complete the task. Because of this, I usually want to do things as early as possible, but due to other more present matters and pure inertia, I usually don't do these things until it is almost too late anyway. Still, though, all the while they are gnawing at my mind, and if there are a lot of things to do at once it becomes very easy for my mind to become overwhelmed. That's definite IP there.

Note also that Ni / Se valuers are decisive in terms of Reinin dichotomies, which, though at first making no sense whatsoever to me in terms of Ni base, I have gradually come to understand better. It is rather subtle, maybe manifesting merely as a deep urge to get something necessary done: let's say I have to be somewhere at 10.30 and it takes 15 minutes to get there. I will be ready to go at least an hour in advance. It seems as though I always have to mentally prepare myself if I'm going to do something. Not that it is entirely impossible to do something in a spontaneous and off-the-cuff, it's just that doing things in such a way is not my natural mode of existence. I plan EVERYTHING, but at the same time none of the plans I have are immutable (usually I have contingencies based on probable outcomes / deterrents anyway), they are always free for change assuming the variables upon which they are based change. I always like to have a clear picture of what I am doing to do, and then do it and have it done. Contrast decisive IP vs judicious EP vs... probably any IJ.

I think it is true that IPs appear outwardly lazy as hell, but this seems to be not at all true internally. There's always something going on.

Oh, and yes, curse those who do mundane tasks slowly. May they all be removed from existence. I don't exhibit any outward signs of road rage, but people who drive slow piss me off to no end.

I felt this test was repetitive. Even online tests tend to get my type right, but this one didn't. The way it judged the answers was poor. It should instead have given dichotomies a percentage and judged type based on which dichotomies were highest.

That's... a terrible way of designing a typology test. Just look at MBTI tests, which never fail to type me as INTP despite the fact that I am actually INTJ there.

=====

ILI

88% ILI
72% LIE
67% SLI
63% LII / LSI
51% ESI / LSE
49% IEI / EII
48% ILE / SLE
36% SEI / EIE
28% SEE / IEE
24% ESE

The test was boring and repetitive, but it is interesting to see the plethora of different results and their percentages based on something more meaningful than jungian dichotomies.

EDIT: After organizing my results a bit and putting them in order of score, it is a little more apparent how the scoring works and it is interesting to see very similar scores between a lot of kindred and business types, even those that have nothing to do with the highest two or three types (which were, in my case, quite predictability the identity, mirror, and business). Rather... peculiar.

[DirectorAbbie]

That's... a terrible way of designing a typology test. Just look at MBTI tests, which never fail to type me as INTP despite the fact that I am actually INTJ there.

MBTI is certainly terrible, but I was under the impression that it used only four dichotomies in its tests. I intended for my hypothetical one to use Reinin dichotomies as well.

[Persephone]

Hum, should I retake the test?..

[nil]

MBTI is certainly terrible, but I was under the impression that it used only four dichotomies in its tests. I intended for my hypothetical one to use Reinin dichotomies as well.

I believe that at least a few questions on the test are based on the Reinin dichotomies, though I could be wrong on that. And you are correct, a test that uses the Reinin dichotomies would probably be much more accurate than any test using purely Jungian dichotomies. I still prefer... other methods of typing though, I guess. The interesting thing about Reinin dichotomies (and what makes them useful in a test) is that they are all just permutations of the original four dichotomies, permitting a web of the four Jungian dichotomies to exist in how all of the Reinin dichotomies manifest, thus making a result based solely on dichotomies much more reliable.

Huh... maybe I should write a test.

[Radio]

The Empath (EII)

27% ILE, 66% LII, 35% ESE, 58% SEI, 19% SLE, 58% LSI, 42% EIE, 58% IEI, 42% SEE, 75% ESI, 40% LIE, 56% ILI, 50% IEE, 81% EII, 33% LSE and 56% SLI!

HOW PREDICTABLE

[Olly From Wally World]

The Romantic (IEI)

49% ILE, 49% LII, 40% ESE, 60% SEI, 50% SLE, 50% LSI, 90% EIE, 99% IEI, 49% SEE, 51% ESI, 51% LIE, 49% ILI, 47% IEE, 47% EII, 10% LSE and 18% SLI!

The test was okay. Only chose the fifth option a few times. Maybe you should add in some Reinin or temperament questions though? I want to see the illustrations for the others type now, lol.

[Not A Communist Shill]

I'm absolutely not going to bastardise the test by adding questions related to the Reinin dichotomies, unless they are related to the quadras or some such. it would be interesting to see such a test with statements that are actually discernible and relatable, but no doubt I'd still score ILE.

[Olly From Wally World]

I'm absolutely not going to bastardise the test by adding questions related to the Reinin dichotomies, unless they are related to the quadras or some such. it would be interesting to see such a test with statements that are actually discernible and relatable, but no doubt I'd still score ILE.

Hmmm, quadra may be better than putting Reinin, I guess. Why wasn't that added? I liked the test though. While I've seen a lot of those descriptions around, they're good and I probably haven't seen them put into a test.

Dat smiley tho. Is Reinin really that ridiculous to you?

[Not A Communist Shill]

I couldn't fathom a reasonable way of representing the quadras in a short way and I thought the values would seem too difficult to get an overall sense of.

If I think I am EII from self-analysis and certainly a long way from being an extrovert, then it is easy to see why the Reinin dichotomies are the opposite of useful when they tell me through self-analysis of the dichotomies that I am ILE. This approach seems akin to relying on a Chinese Whisper when you can go directly to the source - and this is before determining if the Reinin dichotomies are actually valid.

[DirectorAbbie]

"Best not share things with that forum if they're not interested." -polikujm

[silke]

please get off my nuts with this constant passive aggressive bullshit.

Lol, you get so upset over imaginary things.

Discussing types and typing tests doesn't constitute aggression of any sort, active or passive, unless of course for a Se PoLR the size of Maritsa's that misperceives type discussions as a hostile attack on herself.

[ashlesha]

ok ok ok ok i'm EII ok will you stop hinting that i am in every thread now I ADMITTED IT

[Kalinoche buenanoche]

DA y do u post on behalf of polikujm?

[silke]

ok ok ok ok i'm EII ok will you stop hinting that i am in every thread now I ADMITTED IT

any time i write anything about EIIs it of course has to do with you, you you you all my posts are of course indirectly talking about you, now i hope you've had your little narcissistic fill so we can move on from this

[trifling nincompoop]

any time i write anything about EIIs it of course has to do with you, you you you all my posts are of course indirectly talking about you, now i hope you've had your little narcissistic fill so we can move on from this

great way to handle this 10/10 provocation doesnt actual provoke it soothes life lesson what, 4 5 maybe not sure, its one of the two

[DirectorAbbie]

DA y do u post on behalf of polikujm?

I often defer to him on the technicalities of socionics. He understands it pretty well and is good at typing, but he left the forum. So when he has something to say about a topic, I offer a way to share it without his having to get too involved with a forum he hates.

[Kalinoche buenanoche]

y does he hate it? has he found a more appropriate one? if yes, which one?

[Not A Communist Shill]

"The problem isn't in adding and subtracting fields of questions, the problem is that definitions on these kinds of tests are always too deceptive to be trustworthy.

See, the user Nil has a problem with temperaments that is based on this deception. His temperament definitions describe a loose behaviorism tied to each type, instead of what should be an immediately noticeable disposition, not based on any program of behaviorism. They should read something like this:

xJ temperaments are Judgers. Their disposition reads 'stiff' because of subconsciously awaiting information. When information arrives they are naturally sorting, judging, or ignoring it based on a value system. Instead of adapting to the information, the information becomes adapted to them and their motive. In this sense their disposition can be characterized as reflexive and reactive, and are most noticeably 'stiff' in their actions. Don't confuse this with having a stiff personality.

xP temperaments are Perceivers. Their disposition reads 'flexible' and 'loose' due to the fact that they subconsciously adapt to the path information takes, instead of the other way around: taking possession of information. Information takes possession of them. When information arrives it naturally feeds through them and dwells in their presence, naturalized to the external context, being adapted to and acted upon.

Now if only people thought their typings through by taking a literal approach to how definitions like this read, instead of biasedly being swayed by all kinds of stereotypes like "A big imagination, a detached dreaminess. That's an Ni dominant!" or "Fi is ethical judgements about people," instead of "Fi represents a judgement based on a general Feeling value system," they may actually begin to develop constructive discussion and agree on very basic things.

But that's not the 16 types. Instead, for the time being, simply coming up with suggestions to add will continually reverse the weight on any real intricacies about typology. Your forum needs to come together and make real foundational decisions on the data instead of just wading around in circles with their clunky personal experiences."

-polikujm

I don't really care to defend temperament descriptions I don't really care about, but I doubt polikujm's descriptions are liable to be superior: EJs for example are judging types but could be described as "flexible". I don't think these alternative descriptions of temperaments and criticism of the function descriptions used here really hold any weight...it is perfectly possible for a person to consider one possibility against another as described and decide if it relates to them. I personally find a description like "Fi represents a judgement based on a general Feeling value system," utterly baffling - it would make me wonder if there was anybody at all who did not have a "general Feeling value system", whatever that is.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Lol, you get so upset over imaginary things.

Discussing types and typing tests doesn't constitute aggression of any sort, active or passive, unless of course for a Se PoLR the size of Maritsa's that misperceives type discussions as a hostile attack on herself.

Your attitude here seems to imply otherwise and your argument is utterly weak. PoLR much ?

[silke]

Your attitude here seems to imply otherwise and your argument is utterly weak. PoLR much ?

yes Subt, taking your test and discussing possible subtype influences was terribly aggressive and rude of me - how could anyone commit such vile transgressions? this could only be explained by a glaring Fe PoLR

[Not A Communist Shill]

You can take me seriously if you like.

[silke]

i'm afraid i couldn't take you any other way due to that pesky Fe polr that i'm having right now

[Scapegrace]

Don't comic sans, man.

My results are... weird.

The Observer (ILI)
59% ILE, 63% LII, 25% ESE, 42% SEI, 51% SLE, 50% LSI, 47% EIE, 62% IEI, 37% SEE, 44% ESI, 62% LIE, 76% ILI, 36% IEE, 49% EII, 40% LSE and 49% SLI!

[DirectorAbbie]

y does he hate it? has he found a more appropriate one? if yes, which one?

I don't think he has; he just got fed up with inaccuracies.

[Not A Communist Shill]

He responded back. "By Subt's logic, I don't believe I can see because my dominant function isn't sensing. Sounds like behavioral typology, not information metabolism. He should go back to school." -polikujm

if polikujm wants a sarcastic response, then I will get round to making some barbed comment about his undying solipsism (at best) when he was on this forum, and that I anticipate his revolutionary paper that manages to find a solution to war through the process of worldwide self-realisation that will undoubtedly take place as a result.

Does Model A say that we only use dominant functions and that only "sensing" types utilise their senses?

[Aylen]

I appreciate the effort that was put into making this test and from what I have seen most people are getting their self type but the the IEI who didn't get IEI I still feel are self typed correctly. I don't know everyone's self type who took it though.

Fe PoLRs please don't kill me. I had a rough day. I swerved to avoid hitting a protected turtle and felt so relieved until I look in my rearview mirror to make sure it was alright and witnessed the guy riding my ass for miles hit it and throw it 5 feet in the air.

I am sick to my stomach over seeing that. Ugh! He could have missed it if he wasn't riding me.

Thanks @Subteigh for the test and the effort.

[Aylen]

i'm afraid i couldn't take you any other way due to that pesky Fe polr that i'm having right now

I think everyone is Fe polr today.

[Iris]

I appreciate the effort that was put into making this test and from what I have seen most people are getting their self type but the the IEI who didn't get IEI I still feel are self typed correctly. I don't know everyone's self type who took it though.

Fe PoLRs please don't kill me. I had a rough day. I swerved to avoid hitting a protected turtle and felt so relieved until I look in my rearview mirror to make sure it was alright and witnessed the guy riding my ass for miles hit it and throw it 5 feet in the air.

I am sick to my stomach over seeing that. Ugh! He could have missed it if he wasn't riding me.

Thanks @Subteigh for the test and the effort.

Aw, Aylen.

[ragnar]

The Splendid Socionics Test 3.0

The Analyst (LII) 44% ILE, 64% LII, 42% ESE, 58% SEI, 44% SLE, 64% LSI, 29% EIE, 45% IEI, 38% SEE, 52% ESI, 42% LIE, 58% ILI, 38% IEE, 60% EII, 55% LSE and 63% SLI!

[strangeling]

26% ILE, 58% LII, 34% ESE, 64% SEI, 19% SLE, 51% LSI, 49% EIE, 70% IEI, 42% SEE, 66% ESI, 40% LIE, 62% ILI, 49% IEE, 72% EII, 26% LSE and 56% SLI!

It says I'm EII, but a lot of the percentages are pretty close.

EII - 72%
IEI - 70%
ESI - 66%
SEI - 64%
ILI - 62%
LII - 58%
SLI - 56%
LSI - 51%

EIE - 49%
IEE - 49%
SEE - 42%
LIE - 40%
ESE - 34%
LSE - 26%
ILE - 26%
SLE - 19%

I pretty much agree that I relate to EII, IEI, ESI, ILI, and LII to varying degrees. Though I can probably rule out LII, having known some Ti types and clashing with them at times. It's their tendency to judge and deal with people based on some rational train of thought. For example, I need to punish you for this or you won't learn. But people are all different and some people don't have to be punished to learn, depending on their character. And I know I'm not Si valuing, so I can rule out SEI and SLI, especially since I know people that are and can understand I'm not that. So EII, IEI, ESI, and ILI sounds like a good conclusion. I wouldn't want to narrow it down any more than that without feeling like I'm being dishonest to myself.

So this is a pretty cool test from my point of view.

[Amber]

EIE

24% ILE, 47% LII, 59% ESE, 47% SEI, 38% SLE, 63% LSI, 81% EIE, 67% IEI, 51% SEE, 70% ESI, 60% LIE, 34% ILI, 38% IEE, 54% EII, 38% LSE and 15% SLI!

[nil]

"The problem isn't in adding and subtracting fields of questions, the problem is that definitions on these kinds of tests are always too deceptive to be trustworthy.

See, the user Nil has a problem with temperaments that is based on this deception. His temperament definitions describe a loose behaviorism tied to each type, instead of what should be an immediately noticeable disposition, not based on any program of behaviorism. They should read something like this:

xJ temperaments are Judgers. Their disposition reads 'stiff' because of subconsciously awaiting information. When information arrives they are naturally sorting, judging, or ignoring it based on a value system. Instead of adapting to the information, the information becomes adapted to them and their motive. In this sense their disposition can be characterized as reflexive and reactive, and are most noticeably 'stiff' in their actions. Don't confuse this with having a stiff personality.

xP temperaments are Perceivers. Their disposition reads 'flexible' and 'loose' due to the fact that they subconsciously adapt to the path information takes, instead of the other way around: taking possession of information. Information takes possession of them. When information arrives it naturally feeds through them and dwells in their presence, naturalized to the external context, being adapted to and acted upon.

Now if only people thought their typings through by taking a literal approach to how definitions like this read, instead of biasedly being swayed by all kinds of stereotypes like "A big imagination, a detached dreaminess. That's an Ni dominant!" or "Fi is ethical judgements about people," instead of "Fi represents a judgement based on a general Feeling value system," they may actually begin to develop constructive discussion and agree on very basic things.

But that's not the 16 types. Instead, for the time being, simply coming up with suggestions to add will continually reverse the weight on any real intricacies about typology. Your forum needs to come together and make real foundational decisions on the data instead of just wading around in circles with their clunky personal experiences."

-polikujm

Wasn't polikujm practically trolling in at least a majority of the posts he made here? And now he is both complaining about t16t and indirectly posting there through another person he has contact with through some unknown avenue of communication? Ridiculous.

At any rate, I heavily disagree with your assessment. The problem isn't that people don't pay enough attention to the data, the problem is that people pay too much attention to it and don't attempt to let reality and experience inform the theoretical model. That's why such simple-minded stereotypes about any number of facets concerning socionics exist in the first place.

"Fi represents a judgement (sic) based on a general Feeling value system" What does that even mean? None of the critical terms are defined and it is just an expanded form of "Fi is ethical judgements (sic) about people". There is no difference except the words used. Such a simple way of looking of information elements may work for someone who has the proper background to be able to understand the definitional and systemic context of the words being used, but it would be absolutely meaningless for someone trying to grasp the 'very basic things' you claim such definitions will allow people to agree on. It's steeped in the same personal subjective understanding you decry.

My temperament "definitions" weren't really behavioral, and it only takes someone not inclined to take everything completely literally to see that. I actually said that the overtly behavioral aspects in traditional temperament definitions are nonsense. Even in my examples, it is immediately obvious that the focus is on energy flow rather than outward action. It just so happens that outward action tends to follow inward flow.

I don't really mind your own temperament definitions, but I think using 'stiff' to describe rationals and 'loose' and 'flexible' to describe irrationals is a very elementary perspective of looking of them that should stay in MBTI.

I appreciate the effort that was put into making this test and from what I have seen most people are getting their self type but the the IEI who didn't get IEI I still feel are self typed correctly. I don't know everyone's self type who took it though.

If we look at the results, the type with the second highest score is usually the mirror or the kindred, at least based on the data thus far. I wouldn't worry about it too much.

[darya]

ok ok ok ok i'm EII ok will you stop hinting that i am in every thread now I ADMITTED IT

Would make sense why you seem so different to other ESI's here. Different as in much much better.

[Reficulris]

The Observer (ILI)

57% ILE, 53% LII, 19% ESE, 51% SEI, 49% SLE, 45% LSI, 34% EIE, 66% IEI, 55% SEE, 53% ESI, 49% LIE, 72% ILI, 55% IEE, 60% EII, 34% LSE and 58% SLI!


Hahahaha sorry Subt, this quizz really misses the mark

[ashlesha]

Would make sense why you seem so different to other ESI's here. Different as in much much better.

Aww I like the esis. But thank you. I've gotten used to thinking of myself as esi but eii is possible.

[HERO]

The Observer (ILI)

60% ILE, 63% LII, 26% ESE, 47% SEI, 55% SLE, 60% LSI, 44% EIE, 62% IEI, 30% SEE, 47% ESI, 58% LIE, 67% ILI, 35% IEE, 49% EII, 40% LSE and 51% SLI!

67% ILI
63% LII
62% IEI
60% ILE
60% LSI
58% LIE
55% SLE
51% SLI
49% EII
47% ESI
47% SEI
44% EIE
40% LSE
35% IEE
30% SEE
26% ESE

[suedehead]

The Politician (SEE)

30% ILE, 28% LII, 44% ESE, 48% SEI, 42% SLE, 40% LSI, 44% EIE, 40% IEI, 79% SEE, 66% ESI, 49% LIE, 56% ILI, 67% IEE, 62% EII, 49% LSE and 56% SLI!

[Nevero]

I'm absolutely not going to bastardise the test by adding questions related to the Reinin dichotomies, unless they are related to the quadras or some such. it would be interesting to see such a test with statements that are actually discernible and relatable, but no doubt I'd still score ILE.

the question that starts with "I see reality as continuous, gradual, often imperceptible change" sounded like reinin's dichotomy static/dynamic. these were my results

The Artisan (SLI)

33% SEE, 53% LSE, 60% LII, 49% ILE, 44% SLE, 72% ESI, 31% EIE, 31% IEI, 47% SEI, 73% SLI, 32% LIE, 42% ESE, 36% IEE, 53% EII, 69% ILI and 69% LSI!

[Pink]

Sort of rushed the first time I took this test. Re-did it and actually read the options (And didn't skim) (: Percentages are kind of .. Ehh.

The Romantic (IEI)

36% ILE, 32% LII, 45% ESE, 58% SEI, 42% SLE, 47% LSI, 56% EIE, 68% IEI, 65% SEE, 63% ESI, 53% LIE, 66% ILI, 51% IEE, 38% EII, 35% LSE and 47% SLI!

IEIs perceive, process, and produce information concerning trends and patterns over time most intensively. They constantly and inadvertently make judgments, assessments, and assumptions about relationships based on what they see as recurring trends from past behavior.

They tend to understand the underlying dynamics of situations, people, etc., but may not be able to readily verbalize these insights since they are so internal and conceptual. IEIs are very imaginative people who tend to be mystical and dreamy. Their gentle demeanor does not cast them as particularly rebellious, but their obscure desires are often a far cry from those of the typical person.

[miss BabyDoll]

The Inspector (LSI)

75% LSI
63% LII
55% LIE
55% LSE
53% ILI
53% SLI
51% SLE
51% ILE
51% ESI
51% EII
49% ESE
49% EIE
47% SEI
47% IEI
28% SEE
28% IEE