NEW socionics test

[xerx]

Someone from Stickam wrote some questions and asked me to program them into a test for him or her:
http://thesocio.net/forum/tests/hugo/body.php

Enjoy.

[Satan]

It says I'm INFP

[Satan]

if I say I'm INFP does that mean poeple will want to give me things?

[Mediator Kam]

I got INFP and ISFJ, very close to ISFP. Noice.

[The Exception]

I tried it several different times using different combinations of phrases and always get INTj. One time it gave me my type after selecting just two phrases.

I think these four fit me best, but the test didn't allow me to select that exact combination.

*You deal with the objective and logical aspects of life. (logical type)
*You are attentive to your personal interests (I'm guessing this refers to obstinate types)
*You are aware of dangers and what is absent, insufficient, or possible to lose (negativist types?)
*You deal with ideas and concepts (intuitive type)

Note that the above 4 are shared by both LII and ILI

Additionally, these also fit me well:
*You evaluate the purpose behind your actions (strategic?)
*Your judgements are based on on your very own concepts and opinions (subjectivist, Ti/Fe valuer)
*You are attentive to your own personal resources (complaint? I want to protect both resources and interests)

I don't really buy into the Reinin dichotomies but it seemed to work for me.

[Satan]

hey i was estp this time

[xerx]

If you have problems take it up with the rightful owner of those questions.

One time it gave me my type after selecting just two phrases.

Did you refresh or anything? Because the test doesn't restart until you answer four questions and remembers the ones you already entered. [EDIT: unless you close the browser or clean the history].

[Galen]

I got ESFp, ENFp, ENTj, ESFj. Reinin dichotomy tests are never that good.

At least extroversion is consistent, that's not something I would have expected from any other test.

[717495]

Well at least I'm a type on this one. The last Socionics test I took said that my results weren't close enough to any type.

[Sirena]

INFJ

[jughead]

entj and estj..crap

[Aiss]

Your socionics type is ENFJ.

Doesn't everyone want to be their supervisor, or something.

[Nowisthetime]

I got ENTP and ISTP.

This test was quite difficult. I am not sure if I understood the statements the same way as the maker of the test.

[Simon Ssmall]

ISFp, ESTj and ESFp DD, ok I don't think this test is any good

[Park]

Your socionics type is INTJ

[squark]

ISFj, ISTj, ISTj

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[squark]

Alright, it works clearing cookies. I think you made a mistake in your algorithm, namely reverted Merry with Serious? Here are my answers:

- In a situation, you are aware of dangers and what is absent, insufficient or possible to lose.
- You evaluate the next step to take in a sequence of steps.
- When solving a new problem that arises, you create a new algorithm.

Then I used two different options:
- either: Your are attentive to your personal interests. - case where I'm an ENFp
- or: You view a person/object without the context of the surroundings he/it is part of. - when I'm an ISFj

So I think the second and third options should have add to Merry but they are adding weight to Serious? Or is this how it should have worked?

If I were to guess I'd say your answers were: negativism, static, Te, and then ?, and not-Si? I guess one good thing about the test is that it's not easy to guess what it's measuring - so it makes it difficult to cheat. I've noticed that a lot of times people just choose whatever will give them the type they want to get regardless of actual sentiments. Not knowing what it's asking helps prevent that.

[Mattie]

I took Hugo's test a while ago, and it sucked then. And now...

Your socionics type is INTJ, INFJ; ISTJ...

It still really sucks.

First of all, none of us actively think in any of those choices. While we may have some sort of 'algorithm' for thinking, we all most likely have a similar process and none of us are robots that have that on our display screen when interacting with another person (who happens to be Sarah Conner ). A lot of these choices were too broad, too steeped in stereotypes, and were traits everyone could easily share. I honestly don't think it is possible to have a good test until IEs are scientifically proven, so you would know how to actually find them.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[marooned]

It is recommended to take the test as many times as possible
to get an accurate view of your socionics type.

lol

[squark]

@squark: is this what you took as Te?

I think it might be what the testmaker used to determine Te, but it's not how I would.

[Aiss]

@squark: is this what you took as Te?

I also think this question relates more or less to Te, but it's possible there's some weird dichotomy involved.

I wouldn't define Te this way, but I must say it works for this function (keep in mind it's your demonstrative, so you use whether you're aware of it or not); it figures how to do things "methodically" - that is, by creating a method, hence "algorithmic" logic. Not really "dilligently" or "following a ready-made recipe to a letter" or whatever else it could be thought to mean. I've no wish to start the old argument again, but that's a big part of strong Te. It refers to the approach taken, in short.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Jarno]

INTJ

I don't like the test, I also don't find it a good one either.

[Trevor]

ENFP

[Aiss]

Yeah, me too.

I think there your interpretation is sensible, but that includes creating and memorizing/reusing that algorithm. I didn't considered that, I simply create another one.

You are justified to include that, though, because of the ambiguity of the context - "new problem". There can be totally different problems where simply known algorithms can't be applied or fail (Te) and new instances of experienced problems, maybe slightly different, but where known algorithms can be applied.

If an old solution can be applied, it's not a new problem. If an old solution needs to be adapted a bit, it's still not a new problem. In fact, often it isn't really a problem anymore, just a bother someone else can take care of, if I manage to get them to (I wish people were more cooperative). I suppose it's all a matter of perception.

In any case, it's not related to Demonstrative, Ti-Ego and Ti-Id are not doing things the same way, this *is* the difference between them (...)

I know that, I've mentioned several times times that I think deconstructive would be more fitting name, in a way; I mostly use my Ti to criticize and point out flaws, not construct.

[xerx]

There's a bug, or something.

I first chose "In a situation, you are aware of dangers and what is absent, insufficient or possible to lose." then went backpage to copy it to remember, then went forth, chose "You evaluate the next step to take in a sequence of steps." then something changed, I think, so I went back again or something, and in the end I retook closed the page and retook the test, but after I choose the first preference, the second (with the steps evaluation) disappears, along with others, but id didn't disappear the first time.

Should I clear some cookies, why does it behave differently?

The test opens a session so this is supposed to happen. You need to clear the cache or pick any 4 choices if you want the session to close. If you get an error message the session closes and you can restart.

Try to do the test in one shot.

Alright, it works clearing cookies. I think you made a mistake in your algorithm, namely reverted Merry with Serious? Here are my answers:

- In a situation, you are aware of dangers and what is absent, insufficient or possible to lose. Negativism
- You evaluate the next step to take in a sequence of steps. Tactical
- When solving a new problem that arises, you create a new algorithm. Carefree

Then I used two different options:
- either: Your are attentive to your personal interests. - case where I'm an ENFp Obstinate
- or: You view a person/object without the context of the surroundings he/it is part of. - when I'm an ISFj Democratic

Negativism + Tactical + Carefree + Obstinate = ENFp
Negativism + Tactical + Carefree + Democratic = ISFj

[Aiss]

Negativism + Tactical + Carefree + Obstinate = ENFp
Negativism + Tactical + Carefree + Democratic = ISFj

OK, so it's really just a weird Te-unrelated dichotomy then. The questions leave a lot of room for interpretation, though. I obviously choose the wrong ones to end - taking several routes - with ENFj (I've also got ENFp once - and ESFj, though that was by clicking accidentally).

[April]

ENFj twice --> INTj --> INFj twice

[Beautiful sky]

You are aware of the unvarying characteristics of your surroundings, and perceive the sequence of an event as a collection of consecutive still photos/frames/slides. -THAT RESULTS IN INFJ?

[Aiss]

You are aware of the unvarying characteristics of your surroundings, and perceive the sequence of an event as a collection of consecutive still photos/frames/slides. -THAT RESULTS IN INFJ?

That's supposed to describe static types, one of which just happens to be INFj.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Beautiful sky]

That's supposed to describe static types, one of which just happens to be INFj.

what is "unvarying characteristics"?

[Beautiful sky]

My order of choices are:

You deal with emotions and feelings of people.

You deal with ideas and concepts.

You deal with your surrounding according to your plans, expectations, and personal criteria

You are aware of the unvarying characteristics of your surroundings, and perceive the sequence of an event as a collection of consecutive still photos/frames/slides.

I chose the last because it had the word sequence, other then that I would not have chosen it, so please explain to me what the check does that sentence mean.
Produced INFj

[xerx]

I understand. This is where you're wrong: believing that those dichotomies are true - apart from Democratic, where I think that answer might actually be appropriate.

Edit: "...where I think you're wrong"

Pinocchio, this isn't my test. I just programmed it for Hugo.

You are aware of the unvarying characteristics of your surroundings, and perceive the sequence of an event as a collection of consecutive still photos/frames/slides.

Static.

[Beautiful sky]

Pinocchio, this isn't my test. I just programmed it for Hugo.



Static.

SEE are testing EII on this test, that shows a problem to me.
Perhapse you might need to find a way to differentiate the statics.

[717495]

Pinocchio, this isn't my test. I just programmed it for Hugo.

Hugo lives! He is like the voldermort channeling his soul and magic through your shell.