Socionics

[Hugo]

http://www.people.iup.edu/rdxm

I'm thinking that my test (although based on socionics) is closer to reality than socionics theory is. Once you determine your type with my test, you can base intertype relations on the test results. This is likely to be more useful in real life than socionics theory. In my opinion your socionics type, is the result you get on my test, rather than what you originally thought it to be.
What do you think?

[Expat]

First, maybe it's just me but I preferred one of your earlier versions, also where the temperaments where defined with two words -- this is perhaps too minimalisitc.

Second, I'm not sure what you mean. Isn't your test based on Model A ordering of the functions for each type? It does use Socionics theory. If you mean that in principle all someone needs is to take your test to discover their type, and then check in a table what relationships they will have with someone else, that might work assuming that people indeed always test right.

[Hugo]

Expat, please see above as I have made changes to my original post, which I hope answers your questions.

...assuming that people indeed always test right.

What I am saying is that people will always test right, and this is far more useful than relying on type descriptions to work out your type. The result you get on the test is a conclusive answer to what your type is, and this test result should be the basis of intertype relationships.

If you mean that in principle all someone needs is to take your test to discover their type, and then check in a table what relationships they will have with someone else, that might work assuming that people indeed always test right.

Yes, this is what I mean.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Hugo]

Diana, you told me you got INFj on the test after I made amendments to the and descriptions. In any event, even if you do still get INTp, you would get on well with an ESFp. It is possible that a person who thoguht they are ESTj might get ESFp on my test.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Hugo]

In that case, maybe you are most compatible with people that get ESFp on my test.

[Mariano Rajoy]

i came out with intj on the test, but was unsure about selecting mobile vs. calm. had i waffled on and chosen mobile, as i can be, i would have gotten a different answer. there is an element of self-evaluation in the participant that could throw your results off.

[Expat]

What I am saying is that people will always test right, and this is far more useful than relying on type descriptions to work out your type. The result you get on the test is a conclusive answer to what your type is, and this test result should be the basis of intertype relationships.

I think that altogether it's a very good test. But I am skeptical that any test based on self-perception and understanding of functions (even if indirectly) will always have correct results. Especially with such a short test, where even one misunderstanding will lead to a different type.

[Hugo]

i came out with intj on the test, but was unsure about selecting mobile vs. calm. had i waffled on and chosen mobile, as i can be, i would have gotten a different answer. there is an element of self-evaluation in the participant that could throw your results off.

The test asks what you are "most of the time" out of mobile and calm.

You know yourself better than most people and self-evaluation forms an important part to determining your type. Therefore, what ever result you get is conclusively your type.

[Phaedrus]

I'm not sure whether I have tried one of your earlier versions or not, but at least this one picks out the correct type for me - INTp. My initial impression is that the test might be really good. It is rather short, and the questions were not that difficult for me to answer.

My result: http://www.people.iup.edu/rdxm/v3.1/...lts.htm?e_i=14

[Hugo]

I am attentive to who likes who and who dislikes who.

I think the above quote is very . Do you think I am mistaken?

[Nessy]

I tested INTj again, and found no difference than its glittering catchphrase.

Once you determine your type with my test, you can base intertype relations on the test results. This is likely to be more useful in real life than socionics theory.

Intertype relation is exactly center of the reason why I think I'm not INTj.

[Gilly]

I am attentive to who likes who and who dislikes who.

I think the above quote is very . Do you think I am mistaken?

Yes, I think you are.

I agree with Hugo here. Being attentive to the relations between people is very much a function of , IMO. For example, one of the ways I see weak in myself is my inability to determine the exact nature of the relations between myself and another person.

[Hugo]

@Diana

unless you are actually INTp as the test suggests

I think Annedelise agrees with the Fi description I have given

[Hugo]

Intertype relation is exactly center of the reason why I think I'm not INTj.

Perhaps you have mistyped people, and they may get a result on my test that is different to what you thought their type is. Remember that socionics types are theoretical.

[Nessy]

Intertype relation is exactly center of the reason why I think I'm not INTj.

Perhaps you have mistyped people, and they may get a result on my test that is different to what you thought their type is. Remember that socionics types are theoretical.

Tell me what type you tested yourself by it, and it'll be a good answer.

[Hugo]

INTj

what's your point?

[Ms. Kensington]

I got ENTp. I think I am confused about what "mobile" means though. Do you just mean active?

[Nessy]

INTj

what's your point?

Do you think we're in Identity relationship? Or any other?

[Hugo]

Mobile being opposed to calm, so I suppose you could say active.

[Hugo]

Do you think we're in Identity relationship? Or any other?

It's possible we are identical. Please note that I usually have conflicts here, with other INTjs, probably more than other types. Remember that on a forum, interaction is very limited.

Compatibility is to do with how you would get on with someone in real life on a day to day basis.

[MysticSonic]

http://www.people.iup.edu/rdxm/v3.1/...lts.htm?e_i=10

[Nessy]

It's possible we are identical. Please note that I usually have conflicts here, with other INTjs, probably more than other types. Remember that on a forum, interaction is very limited.

Compatibility is to do with how you would get on with someone in real life on a day to day basis.

You think we're somehow against eachother, right? Then I say, I just feel like uneven parallel, not crossing. What kind of Socionics dynamism do you see?

[anndelise]

@Diana

unless you are actually INTp as the test suggests

I think Annedelise agrees with the Fi description I have given

Uh, nope.
I am assuming that the following is what you have on your test: "I am attentive to who likes who and who dislikes who. I am attentive to people’s needs."

And as I stated in the other thread, I do not agree with it. I think people limit Fi big time, and I find it irritating. It's not about who likes/dislikes who. First of all, Fi is primarily about relating the internal qualities involved. THis in NO WAY specifies PEOPLE are all they are interested in. People are interesting due to the complexity of their relationships with others as well as things, but people are not the only focus of Fi types.

Also, the relationships between people does not just equate to who likes who and who dislikes who. That might be one aspect of it, but not the ONLY aspect of it. I look at a person, I pay attention to the things which they are attracted to, be it another person or an object, or an animal or a concept, or or or. I also pay attention to what they are repulsed by, be it another person, an object, an animal, a concept, etc etc etc.

I also pay attention to a concept and what that concept attracts , is attracted to, repulses, and is repulsed from. If someone says X is Y, then I look at Y and what all Y involves in order to understand X. I look at the person's intent for saying X is Y and I look to see if all that Y involves implies what the person means to imply when they say X.

For example, Fi. I read people saying that Fi is "paying attention to who likes/dislikes who". I then look at what all is involved in saying that. What I see is that it attempts to keep Fi exclusive only to that information and not others. I then look at what socionics says as well as the kinds of things which NeFi are interested in (sorry, FiNe and SeFi/FiSe...I don't get to ya'll until later when I try to relate the four types's uses of Fi). Socionics and observations of other Fi types do NOT limit them exclusively to "who likes/dislikes who". And I find it incorrect/wrong to define Fi as "who likes/dislikes who". And I find it very frustrating that people keep trying to limit Fi to two measly interests when there is a whole world out there available and pursued by Fi types. Oh wait, what did I just do? I just related all that was involved to not just me, but to other Fi types as well...what's that called???? Fi-ing. And it had nothing to do with judging people's characters nor ethics, nor morals, nor who likes/dislikes who.

[anndelise]

Diana:

The differences I've come across between what socionics means of Ti and Fi are:

Fi relates the internal qualites of what all is involved....personal values is one example of what is involved when it comes to people.

Ti relates the external qualities of what is abstracted.... your position in the company's heirarchal status is one example when it comes to people.
***

Another way of pointing out the differences between Ti and Fi are the
Ti=EFS and Fi=IFS.
Both are looking at (xxS) static concepts (values and position are generally considered static concepts even though we know that theoretically they are part of a dynamic system...we still view it as one complete concept in and of itself).
Both are (xFx) relating information to other information, objects to objects, words to words, concepts to concepts, etc.
But Ti looks at the (Exx) external qualities while Fi looks at the (Ixx)internal qualities.

If you would like links to where I got this information, just ask and I'll provide them.

I am considering starting a thread about this, actually....maybe soon.

[Hugo]

You think we're somehow against eachother, right?

No

[consentingadult]

I got ENFp:

http://www.people.iup.edu/rdxm/v3.1/...ults.htm?e_i=3

What is it exactly that you are trying to accomplish with this test?

[Nessy]

No

Then it'll be less competitive.

[Hugo]

What is it exactly that you are trying to accomplish with this test?

To make socionics practical.

[Expat]

I had a friend of mine - whom I've known for 10 years - take both versions of the test. I had talked to him about socionics but not on functional descriptions.

He got INFj very easily, which is how I had typed him.

So the tests got one validation from someone who does not know socionics.

[Phaedrus]

To test INTp instead of INTj I have to chose the first alternative in this question:

B. Which one describes you better most of the time?

I am more attentive to the strength/power of people and things.
I am more attentive to the potential/capability of people and things, which can be developed. I am attentive to inherent possibilities.

The problem is that it is not that easy to know exactly how to determine which of those two alternatives fits better. Would it be possible to give examples in the test or reformulate these alternatives somehow?

[Ch4r]

Whoa.

I got ENTj.

[niveK]

I get ENTp on the 4.1, and INFp on the 3.1.

That would seem to disprove your theory that your tests are "always right."

I can greatly assure you though, I am no INFp.