Socionics Test on HelloQuizzy

[fairylights]

Ultimately it's whether you prefer Extraverted Sensing or Extraverted Intuition in Socionics. Are you easily able to assert yourself when your ethics tell you to or is this an area of difficulty? Is your area of difficulty more about seeing the potential of others?

I'm enneagram 9, i.e. wimp by default. I'll assert myself when I have to but it takes effort. I can see potential in people, I guess, but I also know what I like and dislike pretty quickly and it's not difficult to figure out which people are lost causes.

[World Socionics]

You sound more EII to me. Extraverted Sensing would be in the Vulnerable form rather than Creative.

[ambivalent existence]

I couldn't choose properly at question 16 as the same amount of statements applies to me from each of the two descriptions; so I did the test both ways - rather obviously the first option gives SLE and the second one gives LSI, as the result. That is actually close to how I self-type, a load of Ti and some Se with it, while I don't have an absolute preference for Ti or not as absolute as how it's usually depicted.

Also, in the second round in the test, when choosing between creative Ti and Fi vs creative Se and Ne, I had about the same certainty of choice for both cases, that is, taking the descriptions literally, I identified as easily with the Ti creative description as with the Se creative one.

[ambivalent existence]

you seem to be trusting your test over peoples' self-reports when their answers to the question are also self-reports.

That's a pretty good point there. I'd like to know echidna's response to this.

what is your objective?

I would like to know the answer to this too.

[glam]

Your result for The Socionics Type Indicator
Intuitive-Ethical Introvert (IEI)

You scored 0% on ILE, higher than 27% of your peers.
You scored 5% on SEI, higher than 88% of your peers.
You scored 0% on LII, higher than 29% of your peers.
You scored 0% on ESE, higher than 37% of your peers.

You scored 0% on SLE, higher than 33% of your peers.
You scored 12% on IEI, higher than 97% of your peers.
You scored 0% on LSI, higher than 33% of your peers.
You scored 0% on EIE, higher than 35% of your peers.

You scored 0% on SEE, higher than 36% of your peers.
You scored 7% on ILI, higher than 88% of your peers.
You scored 0% on ESI, higher than 33% of your peers.
You scored 0% on LIE, higher than 31% of your peers.

You scored 0% on IEE, higher than 27% of your peers.
You scored 0% on SLI, higher than 35% of your peers.
You scored 0% on EII, higher than 30% of your peers.
You scored 0% on LSE, higher than 31% of your peers.

[fen]

You didn't follow the instructions clearly. Go back and make sure you answered all the questions you were supposed to answer.


​

[Park]

LII or LSI.

The description sounds the most like me.

[ambivalent existence]

LII or LSI.

The description sounds the most like me.

oh, no longer SLI?

[Park]

oh, no longer SLI?

Still SLI.

[RSV3]

Your result for The Socionics Type Indicator ...
Logical-Intuitive Introvert (LII)

[World Socionics]

SLE

close enough at least

What convinced you to go with the Ti>Fi paragraph on page 2 instead of the Fi>Ti paragraph?

[World Socionics]

I couldn't choose properly at question 16 as the same amount of statements applies to me from each of the two descriptions; so I did the test both ways - rather obviously the first option gives SLE and the second one gives LSI, as the result. That is actually close to how I self-type, a load of Ti and some Se with it, while I don't have an absolute preference for Ti or not as absolute as how it's usually depicted.

Also, in the second round in the test, when choosing between creative Ti and Fi vs creative Se and Ne, I had about the same certainty of choice for both cases, that is, taking the descriptions literally, I identified as easily with the Ti creative description as with the Se creative one.

These problems are being sorted out in Version 2 of the test currently being made. You'll be able to ask for more information specific to what question you can't decide on and be presented with specialised questions based on that. It'll appear on http://www.socionicstypeindicator.com in a few weeks.

[World Socionics]

That's a pretty good point there. I'd like to know echidna's response to this.

Exactly! If someone provides two self reports (one being the type they had chosen before taking the test and the other being what they themselves picked out through taking the test) that contradict, then it is likely that they are confused about Socionics. Because the test is entirely formed of descriptions, a person who is sure of their type should be able to easily pick theirs out. After all, how can you identify with a type but say it doesn't describe you as well as another type?

Either that or my descriptions are off the mark, in which case I'd love some help with corrections in time for Version 2.

I would like to know the answer to this too.

Objective? To create a test with 99.9% accuracy.

[mu4]

Objective? To create a test with 99.9% accuracy.

Self reporting will get close to 1-1.5 sigma of accuracy, not 3, but it's good to have dreams.

[World Socionics]

LII or LSI.

The description sounds the most like me.

Could you explain what it was about paragraphs and that caused you to prefer the sound of your demonstrative to the sound of your base?

[Absurd]

Just tell him he is LSI.

[Park]

Could you explain what it was about paragraphs and that caused you to prefer the sound of your demonstrative to the sound of your base?

That would require me retaking the test, which I'm not willing to do right now.

[Galen]

I got IEE, morality is a joke.

[Park]

morality is a joke.

Okay.

[1981slater]

LIE - ENTj

[1981slater]

The second time I took the test, ILE - ENTp

[Hays]

Second time of taking test I struggled between the first two questions and took the second option ending up with:

You scored 0% on ILE, higher than 25% of your peers.
You scored 4% on SEI, higher than 81% of your peers.
You scored 12% on LII, higher than 95% of your peers.
You scored 0% on ESE, higher than 35% of your peers.
You scored 0% on SLE, higher than 35% of your peers.
You scored 2% on IEI, higher than 55% of your peers.
You scored 7% on LSI, higher than 89% of your peers.
You scored 0% on EIE, higher than 34% of your peers.
You scored 0% on SEE, higher than 39% of your peers
You scored 2% on ILI, higher than 56% of your peers.
You scored 0% on ESI, higher than 35% of your peers.
You scored 0% on LIE, higher than 33% of your peers.
You scored 0% on IEE, higher than 26% of your peers.
You scored 4% on SLI, higher than 87% of your peers.
You scored 5% on EII, higher than 74% of your peers.
You scored 0% on LSE, higher than 31% of your peers.

[Phthalate]

I've already said this in Personality Nation, but I'll make a brand new post here... let's just take your Ne paragraph for example, to prove how your test is NOT perfect, and therefore it can't be used to validate anybody's type.

Additionally, corroboration about the type is an essential step into anybody's type, and the result of a test should not overshadow somebody's reasoning. This is even made for MBTI.

Ne: Imagine a person that is both interesting and unusual. In discussions he brings many new perspectives and alternative attitudes to the subject of discourse, piquing the interest of other people involved.

To who? The quality of something or someone being 'interesting' falls on the eye of the judger, and it's not like labeling something 'red', 'double the size', etc. As an example, just some minutes ago, @WorkaholicsAnon and I were having an 'interesting' talk about endocrine disruption, while everybody else got bored stop talking until she left... 'Interesting' is not a label that can be used to describe someone objectively.

Additionally, isn't everything 'unusual' at some point? If I don't know you, ANYTHING you do is new to me, so in a way you are unusual. While some people may label me unusual because of my jokes and responses, I've had close acquaintances accuse me of being predictable because of their experiences with me.

And new experiences, again, to who? What about someone with a more approach who is just VERY knowledgeable and has insight to many different perspectives because everything he has read? 'New' is not objective either.

Attracted to novel experiences, such a person starts up many new projects but never remains with one that has since gone stale. It is the latent possibilities of something that excites him and as such he is far more likely to do something that increases the potential to do whatever he pleases later on than strive for a concrete goal.

Ok I agree with this one. I wouldn't use the word 'never', because that is too absolute and it describes -base people as always being flaky and unreliable, when other circumstances might make a IxE to stay with a project, but I get the idea.

Often he will spend time doing something merely because it is interesting instead of it being in any way useful.

What if the reason why something is interesting is because it has the potential of how many different ways it can be used for? Like finding a swiss knife and realizing how much you can do with it? Again... very bad choosing of words to describe a motivation.

When excitedly pursuing his latest project, he can often forget about his practical and bodily concerns unless reminded, forgetting to eat, wash and clean his room and may even dash outside without remembering to put on a coat. As such, he likes nothing more than someone who can pay attention to these details and look after him.

I talked about this in PerN. Let me quote myself:

1) Watch out for misinterpreting , , as well as other functions. Ne-base doesn't necessarily mean that a person always neglects its body surroundings. That can just be a symptom of it. Culture, upbringing and mood can affect deeply how a person watches out over how they eat, how they dress, etc.

A local ILE friend and I are big fanatics of cooking several different types of food. We do it because it's just such a fun activity considering all of the possibilities of what you can do with food. I often just browse around cooking websites just thinking what would be fun to cook, how could I personally improve that recipe, getting ideas for meals in the future, etc. She is now trying out being a vegan for the sake of it.

I also have been paying MUCH more attention to my body because of weight issues I had in the past. Living with a EIE who constantly neglected how he ate, where his actions would lead him, etc, sort of did affect me. At the moment, I think I am at a position where I'd rather be the cook over the recipient because of this experience.

You are oversimplifying the IEs. At the moment, it's like I'm reading "You like sports? YOU ARE ESTP!".

Ok... so we have the obvious about me being a base person... so let's judge a function that I DON'T use. Let's talk about Ni, which is the following paragraph:

Imagine someone with a faraway look in his eyes, not paying immediate attention to the things around him and appearing to be in his own world.

Ehhhhh ok...

This person has a very well developed imagination which he uses to explore different scenarios in his head, allowing him to interpret how the actions of the past and present will unfold in the future.

Very well according to what and who? According to all other types? That is sort of ridiculous. I know of several people who create extremely bad theories in their heads, and it is easy to tell they didn't really think things through. There was a guy in PerN/PerC, Revan, who would do this. Extreme crackpot, who was very easy to accuse of being COMPLETELY wrong in an instance because of a lack of a stronger intuitive leap.

This insight allows him to refrain from charging into things, delaying action until he feels it is the right time act. He might appear to others as a sort of “mystic” with his distant expression and focus on the fictional and imaginary.

Ok, I dont disagree here.

Despite his imagination, he can be very indecisive, frequently doubting his vision of future events. Indeed to him nothing is obvious, nothing absolute.

Ah ay... I do have a bit of an issue here. Some Ni people can be sort of quite pushy at the events, and start accusing people of 'lacking the intuitive intellect to reach their understanding'. It's actually quite annoying, because sometimes you ARE proving them wrong, but they are so neglectful of their surroundings, that they choose to dismiss the evidence because it doesn't fit into their perception of life.

I'm not saying this paragraph is wrong... but ehhh wording is an issue.

As such, he desires a forceful, decisive person to spur him into action and help him to confront the world in the present.

I don't have as much of an issue with the paragraph, but again, this might be because it's a function that is completely alien to me and I'm just not that familiar to pick it apart as accurately as I did with .

My biggest point is that, until your test is PERFECT (which is not), then you can't use this to type people absolutely without hearing their input, just like you did with @lungs.

[Jonathan]

Interesting approach for a test. The descriptions are pretty well-written and correspond to typical understandings of the functions, and it's nice that they're worded separately for the base and producing function. Again, it reinforces the difficulty that many descriptions in Socionics, even if potentially accurate, aren't mutually exclusive.

Right from the first question, it's easy to see how the Ne and Ni descriptions could describe the exact same person from two different perspectives. The person is thinking of interesting and unusual things, so to others he has a far-away look in his eyes. Considering latent possibilities, he appears to be in his own world. He does things merely because they're interesting, so he seems unfocused and indecisive to others. Because he's so wrapped up in his own imaginative world, he could use the help of others to look after him and to help him to confront the world at present.

[Absurd]

I think I got it now, that is, it goes well with that "test" I posted some time ago.

[jason_m]

I don't identify with either the Ti or Te description (or value either of them...). I consider this not to be a defect of the test, but the system itself - the functions are well-described based on notions of classical socionics. Both structural logic and business logic have an element of evaluating concepts more in terms of surface-based information; for both functions, details are valued much more highly than the underlying principles. My use of logic is based around "deeper" notions of how things work, and so it doesn't fit will within the framework of Model A. Perhaps, in the future, as the system is further developed, more information elements will be discovered and newer models will be developed. (In fact, this is probably what underlies a lot of the debate about functions and types, as there is probably some overlap and a lot of discrepancies in the community's understanding of IMs,)

[HERO]

Your result for The Socionics Type Indicator ...

Logical-Sensory Extravert (LSE)

"The Director"

You scored 12% on LSE
You scored 7% on LIE
You scored 5% on ESE
You scored 3% on IEE
You scored 3% on ILE


I'm not sure if I understood this test too well. It kind of bored me. Sounds like basic Socionics stuff -- wikisocion, etc.
I think at first I chose Ne over Ni because it sounded more interesting. Residing in some 'fictional' world and pondering time... (Ni) -- sometimes I get bored of the same hackneyed assessments. The test is good I guess -- just not really novel. I think I've taken more interesting tests in the past.
Then when I chose Te it was probably some superficial things, like socially related type stuff... and maybe because I like to cite sources at times... It's kind of funny because as I was going through the test I was scared that I would get LSE, although it's not what I would've intended or wanted in the beginning. I still think I'm probably IEI of course.

I especially relate to some of the descriptions here (mostly Fe; a little bit of Fi at times, although not really...I haven't read them all yet):


http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...Dmitry-Golihov

[Absurd]

I've already said this in Personality Nation, but I'll make a brand new post here... let's just take your Ne paragraph for example, to prove how your test is NOT perfect, and therefore it can't be used to validate anybody's type.

Additionally, corroboration about the type is an essential step into anybody's type, and the result of a test should not overshadow somebody's reasoning. This is even made for MBTI.

It is worded in a way that is going to cause problems for it is open to interpretation. As for Information Elements 'present' in that test and the test itself, it is Reinin based. MBTI claims to be a step further from Jung when it comes to types, which the existence of treats as a fact, hence those MBTI tests, where one isolates something that is in your head placing you as ISFJ for example.

[Absurd]

http://www.deathclock.com/

[World Socionics]

I've already said this in Personality Nation, but I'll make a brand new post here... let's just take your Ne paragraph for example, to prove how your test is NOT perfect, and therefore it can't be used to validate anybody's type.

Additionally, corroboration about the type is an essential step into anybody's type, and the result of a test should not overshadow somebody's reasoning. This is even made for MBTI.



To who? The quality of something or someone being 'interesting' falls on the eye of the judger, and it's not like labeling something 'red', 'double the size', etc. As an example, just some minutes ago, @WorkaholicsAnon and I were having an 'interesting' talk about endocrine disruption, while everybody else got bored stop talking until she left... 'Interesting' is not a label that can be used to describe someone objectively.

Additionally, isn't everything 'unusual' at some point? If I don't know you, ANYTHING you do is new to me, so in a way you are unusual. While some people may label me unusual because of my jokes and responses, I've had close acquaintances accuse me of being predictable because of their experiences with me.

And new experiences, again, to who? What about someone with a more approach who is just VERY knowledgeable and has insight to many different perspectives because everything he has read? 'New' is not objective either.



Ok I agree with this one. I wouldn't use the word 'never', because that is too absolute and it describes -base people as always being flaky and unreliable, when other circumstances might make a IxE to stay with a project, but I get the idea.



What if the reason why something is interesting is because it has the potential of how many different ways it can be used for? Like finding a swiss knife and realizing how much you can do with it? Again... very bad choosing of words to describe a motivation.



I talked about this in PerN. Let me quote myself:





Ok... so we have the obvious about me being a base person... so let's judge a function that I DON'T use. Let's talk about Ni, which is the following paragraph:



Ehhhhh ok...



Very well according to what and who? According to all other types? That is sort of ridiculous. I know of several people who create extremely bad theories in their heads, and it is easy to tell they didn't really think things through. There was a guy in PerN/PerC, Revan, who would do this. Extreme crackpot, who was very easy to accuse of being COMPLETELY wrong in an instance because of a lack of a stronger intuitive leap.



Ok, I dont disagree here.



Ah ay... I do have a bit of an issue here. Some Ni people can be sort of quite pushy at the events, and start accusing people of 'lacking the intuitive intellect to reach their understanding'. It's actually quite annoying, because sometimes you ARE proving them wrong, but they are so neglectful of their surroundings, that they choose to dismiss the evidence because it doesn't fit into their perception of life.

I'm not saying this paragraph is wrong... but ehhh wording is an issue.



I don't have as much of an issue with the paragraph, but again, this might be because it's a function that is completely alien to me and I'm just not that familiar to pick it apart as accurately as I did with .

My biggest point is that, until your test is PERFECT (which is not), then you can't use this to type people absolutely without hearing their input, just like you did with @lungs.

I've edited the paragraphs you've mentioned. The 'suggestive' second half will be dropped and included elsewhere in an edited form for Version 2.

I'm not insisting on Lungs being anything, I'm just not going to take her alternative typing seriously when she reached it through JCF. I've reached a different type with people on a number of occasions that are different to their test result.

[World Socionics]

Your result for The Socionics Type Indicator ...

Logical-Sensory Extravert (LSE)

"The Director"

You scored 12% on LSE
You scored 7% on LIE
You scored 5% on ESE
You scored 3% on IEE
You scored 3% on ILE


I'm not sure if I understood this test too well. It kind of bored me. Sounds like basic Socionics stuff -- wikisocion, etc.
I think at first I chose Ne over Ni because it sounded more interesting. Residing in some 'fictional' world and pondering time... (Ni) -- sometimes I get bored of the same hackneyed assessments. The test is good I guess -- just not really novel. I think I've taken more interesting tests in the past.
Then when I chose Te it was probably some superficial things, like socially related type stuff... and maybe because I like to cite sources at times... It's kind of funny because as I was going through the test I was scared that I would get LSE, although it's not what I would've intended or wanted in the beginning. I still think I'm probably IEI of course.

I especially relate to some of the descriptions here (mostly Fe; a little bit of Fi at times, although not really...I haven't read them all yet):


http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...Dmitry-Golihov

I don't like Golihov's description of Ni very much. It sounds like it's been partially confused with Ti.

To value Te on the first page and to devalue Ni on the second page is quite bemusing to say the least.

[Pa3s]

What bothers me most about this test are the huge chunks of text. I can't keep so much information in my head to compare both and after the third one you already think about quitting it. I prefer short, uncomplicated questions which I can simply weigh up and choose what seems right to me.

[Korpsy Knievel]

Congrats to everyone who completed reading echidna's pick-a-path novel.

[Absurd]

The question ariseth: How did creatura originate? Created beings came to pass, not creatura: since created beings are the very quality of the pleroma, as much as non-creation, which is the eternal death. In all times and places is creation; in all times and places is death. The pleroma hath all, distinctiveness and non-distinctiveness.Distinctiveness is creatura. It is distinct. Distinctiveness is its essence and therefore it distinguisheth.

Have you read this novel, korpsy?