There have been a number of IEI typings for me, about as many as LII's i think. But Ne is much much more likely than Ni dom. Also, Beta is nice, but I have difficulties seeing me fit in there. So no, except for the stupid tests, the chances of me being IEI are slim.Originally Posted by Solaris
Edit: She called me "impure" ((runs off in a corner crying why wondering what he did to destroy the purity in his essence))
Last edited by Reficulris; 07-27-2014 at 02:28 PM.
I haven't settled for LSI or ESI myself. And you typed me ILI. At least you went with the consensus.
But for you it's more funny ...you look really emo, then do smth. that makes radio say you're a moron. Maybe you're actually typeless you only have NPD? ... and BPD? does that come out in tests. I think you're "Id" anyway , if u think of the kind of pics you like --- your avatar fits here : http://socionics4you.com/%D0%B8%D0%B4-2/?lang=en;
You are the uttermost essence and morbid incarnation of an infantile species
The experiment is over, so I would guess you will need to pay now...
I'll PM you the link though.
Ok, thanks for explaining that to me.
I still have a question. If psychophysiology is hidden potential and motivation which come from the subconscious (which is "us" at the most basic level, I assume) then why the Gulenko's description about the dynamic/static dicothomy is not up to date or outdated or not reliable anymore? The fact than one person doesn't care from an empty room and another doesn't care about wasting time is something that must be coming from somewhere. Why is it not coming from the "subconscious"? How did you manage to find out it wasn't? Throught loads of test and example I suppose (since you are static and you can't stand about wasting time).
So everytime you assume it might be coming from the subconscious you need to try your hypothesis out by loads of test? Then you can move on and assume this special item or behaviour might be coming from the subconscious.
Is that how you did with the colour and pattern? You typed numerous people by the "old" and sure method then asked them to do "exemple test" about the shape and colours they liked?
I'm asking because I can't see how you can deduce it is coming from the subconscious or it is coming from life experience (i.e the subtype TPE - life experiences).
Thanks for your time Olga.
What radio says is inconcequential. Being typeless, or even a "non pure type" kinda invalidates socionics. BPD... nah i'm about as far away from borderline as possible. Non-impulsive, not self destructive, not promiscious at all... I think I have none of the dimensions on which pbd is scored. NPD back then was possible, I was kinda a dick. But it was before my eighteenth birthday so it was slowed personality development with narcissistic traits. I got "cured" so to speak, but it's always kept me doubting about my self-immage and psychological health.I haven't settled for LSI or ESI myself. And you typed me ILI. At least you went with the consensus
But for you it's more funny ...you look really emo, then do smth. that makes radio say you're a moron. Maybe you're actually typeless you only have NPD? ... and BPD? does that come out in tests. I think you're "Id" anyway , if u think of the kind of pics you like --- your avatar fits here : http://socionics4you.com/%D0%B8%D0%B4-2/?lang=en;
About your typing, I don't think my typings should be taken serious, its just fun and games to me in a certain sense.
About the Avatar; that's not fair, it's a picture YOU picked out for me ;-)
but they are ok
well that's what LID was saying ...that some socionists she talked to use a system of multiple subtypes (even more than 2 types involved). Kind of like ILE with IEE subtype. Dunno if that's the doom of socionics or a sign of evolution lol.What radio says is inconcequential. Being typeless, or even a "non pure type" kinda invalidates socionics.
About the Avatar; that's not fair, it's a picture YOU picked out for me ;-)
but they are ok
How would you fit with TPE -quadras?
http://socionics4you.com/%d1%82%d0%b...d1%8b/?lang=en
You choose ethics as I can see on the test result. That means IEE- IEI as type and subtype more likely than anything else. But ideally you record video with questionnaire SAS ( School of associatve socionics). I will try to record today a video as example on how to answer the questionnaire.
And I am gong on holls- may not be able to comment promptly. ) So far the tests suggest a strong presence of Superid energy and introversion. Have a look also on the art collections in psychodiagnostics- art on the main page top bar.
School of Associative socionics: http://socionics4you.com/
2MegaBallsUSA
I might interpret what you wrote to me slightly wrongly then please correct me.
"I still have a question. If psychophysiology is hidden potential and motivation which come from the subconscious (which is "us" at the most basic level, I assume) then why the Gulenko's description about the dynamic-static dicothomy is not up to date or outdated or not reliable anymore? "
I see the suggestion of Gulenko as not being able to wait and being restless connected to the dynamics as subjective interpretation. We do not have any objective measure to support his statement. Quite on the opposite, I can relate it to different other reasons and explain differently. For example^ weak or vulnerable intuition with strong sensing for the group of sensing types. But I know that IEEs may experience exactly the same behaviour. What I means that there is no clear and direct link between being restless and not wishing tot wait and dynamics. It is just his view but not supported by any objective research.
The problem with socionics that a lot of explanation are philosophical and not supported by a proper research. It is all on behalf of you to decide what interpretation makes sense to you and it is possible to interpret the same pattern of behaviour differently from different perspectives and they all make sense to you to a different degree. In psychology the authors have to have a research and establish if this hypothetical statement is true or false and to what degree. There can be the link between two statement but it may be not a direct on but dependent on other variables.
You cannot just go a long and may the links as you see but in socionics - you can. Therefore you need to think if this is supported by the research?; can be a different explanation and etc.
School of Associative socionics: http://socionics4you.com/
"The fact than one person doesn't care from an empty room and another doesn't care about wasting time is something that must be coming from somewhere. Why is it not coming from the "subconscious"? How did you manage to find out it wasn't? Throught loads of test and example I suppose (since you are static and you can't stand about wasting time)."
Differences in behaviour are depended on nature (types) and nurture (culture) and they are situational as well. Depending on situation we all may behave similar. It is the big question what behaviour we refer to typical and what's circumstantial. You do need the research and experiments some sort of objective measures to find the support for the statements of Gulenko. Otherwise you just believe in them because they make sense for you - personal choice.
Behaviour belongs more to the conscious field as people know what they are doing. If we look from psychoanalytical perspective then a conscious part of personality Ego makes a decision for the person to act in certain ways. Person can explain why he did what he did. If you look on the preferences in art and music people do not think as such why they love what they love - this is not the point. It is instinctive attraction. There is no censor for what people make love in art and music while for behaviour we do have a censor - Ego.
However, I understand what you mean and I agree to the extent that all internal motivations come to be expressed verbally and in behaviour. At the beginning everything exist on the level of thought and inner feeling. We need to be careful in making assumptions what leads to what. We need to look for objective tendencies and we have to measure them objectively as well. Otherwise many interpretations of the same manifestations can make sense and which one is right? I am searching for the ways to find objective measures for the concept of personality.
School of Associative socionics: http://socionics4you.com/
"So everytime you assume it might be coming from the subconscious you need to try your hypothesis out by loads of test? Then you can move on and assume this special item or behaviour might be coming from the subconscious".
Behaviour as I wrote above may be due to the different factors and can be interpreted differently. I use the word subconscious in relation to my theory because it uses the method - objective - to test people preferences on relation to typical qualities. People do not need to verbalise their choice although the verbalisation is an interesting part on its' own and can tell about the type too. When it is about instant attraction people are not always sure why they feel it. It is instinctive in nature. At the same time we can say everything comes from subconscious originally. However, it is less dependent on other factors. While when you judge the behaviour you need to take into account circumstantial factors. That means you need to know how the person behaves in different situations and what is typical for him.
My methods of understanding the inner qualities does not need observation - time and energy consuming. But you can use both methods. To say more - if you type the person true both concepts must coincide in results. For example, if you are SLE- type you will be Id type or creative type/ If you have static profile ( static type with static subtype), then your subtype is LSI in TPE concept and this means normalising subtype in Gulenko system. You are welcome to use both approaches. The TPE approach can be tested statistically and Gulenko approach - not, because it is based on observation only. His school promote so called observational experiments but ...they say that they are not meant for other people to repeat them and prove the point. I think they a bit messed up about the objective testing and don't know what they talking about.
Only valid tests can move socionics from the interpretational level of psychoanalysis to a level of experimental science. Test mean statistics and ability to repeat experiments.
School of Associative socionics: http://socionics4you.com/
I wonder if it's more important to remove what is "typical" and turn everything around to circumstancial. As typical behaviour is usually a trance, it does make sense to identify some trance like behaviours. But they're probably subconcious rather than conscious.
I don't know if this necessarily holds true. A lot of the time people don't know what they are doing - they are in trances repeating actions etc - and this isn't necessarily conscious. As you type a letter for instance, do you think about what you're saying or what you're typing?Behaviour belongs more to the conscious field as people know what they are doing. If we look from psychoanalytical perspective then a conscious part of personality Ego makes a decision for the person to act in certain ways. Person can explain why he did what he did. If you look on the preferences in art and music people do not think as such why they love what they love - this is not the point. It is instinctive attraction. There is no censor for what people make love in art and music while for behaviour we do have a censor - Ego.
And I can't see why people would think less about what art and music they like. Lots of people don't even seem to experience strong music preferences - and know more what they find distasteful, rather than what they like.
Attraction also would surely be heightened for what is different from our normal mode of operation when comfortable, but not necessarily when uncomfortable. If you're fighting a war, a battle anthem may propel you into action and drive - but if victory is already in sight you may as well listen to something "easy going" to wind down.
I think the biggest problem here is that personality is a subjective experience and not an objective experience. And the very concept of a personality is dynamic and changing due to life events, external circumstances, reactions etc. And just by monitoring one's own experience, and trying to make it objective will change and disturb our current behaviour.However, I understand what you mean and I agree to the extent that all internal motivations come to be expressed verbally and in behaviour. At the beginning everything exist on the level of thought and inner feeling. We need to be careful in making assumptions what leads to what. We need to look for objective tendencies and we have to measure them objectively as well. Otherwise many interpretations of the same manifestations can make sense and which one is right? I am searching for the ways to find objective measures for the concept of personality.
I think the best method is actually probably to measure brain activation and activity levels in response to changes in circumstances etc. Although most probes would change peoples normal behaviour. You need some kind of non-intrusive way to measure.
But as far as tests go the overriding complication is that people tend to behave differently while testing compared to in real life with real reactions. And sometimes it's hard to determine the prominance of various things. Like hidden agendas tend to mean at least some usage of functions that aren't strong and are typically overreported compared to their own strength.
Is that how you did with the colour and pattern? You typed numerous people by the "old" and sure method then asked them to do "exemple test" about the shape and colours they liked?
I'm asking because I can't see how you can deduce it is coming from the subconscious or it is coming from life experience (i.e the subtype TPE - life experiences).
The idea about colours and types came to me as an insight. Probably there was some information on the subconscious level which came out as a possibility of a such link. Being rational type I checked and found out that it is not just an idea - there is more to it. then I started to test it - lots and lots of typing. The concept evolved through the years and has been standardised. Now I don't need to check each of you personally - you can make my tests and they can tell you where you stand as regards to type and subtype. My intention is the improve the tests, to create more tests as objective measures of typical qualities and more....
If you learn the approach you don't need to test people ad you can judge yourself people based on their non-verbal preferences. Then if you can use the test to see if the results coincide with your opinion.
School of Associative socionics: http://socionics4you.com/
There's an interesting game you can play. Someone outstretches their arm to the side. Another party pushes down the arm.
You then repeat this, with the person with the arm to their side repeating i am strong i am strong i am strong. And pushing arm down. Then you do the same again repeating i am weak i am weak i am weak.
I assume it works a lot better on suggestible people than unsuggestible. But it does work. Even when people don't want it to
You can also play various games on top of it. Like you push the persons arm down, and say "You are sexy" to them and suddenly they lose strength. You tell them you hate them, they gain strength etc.
The power of positive suggestion is real. If you say you can do something it makes it easier to do something than if you say you can't do something. Which is one of the reasons it's important to remove in people negative thought patterns if you want them to be positive and capable.
This also means that when doing tests biases can come out as well. And these can change depending on how people look at the test. With people getting more comfortable with tests after repetition goes it means it's usually best to throw out the first few results. But it also means that if order is random etc, things can trigger people and distort. And over time people are often in different headspaces etc.
"I think the biggest problem here is that personality is a subjective experience and not an objective experience"
This is not true, everything is double-sided. I am not sure why is such a focus on behaviour? Are we after behaviour therapy or what? Type and behaviouristic approach?
Every type is described as a combination of typical qualities which assume behaviour. When we talk about subconscious preferences it is more about underlying basis for the type expression in may ways - verbal, actual and etc. It is about psychodiagnostics and it is something we can measure objectively.
If you measure type - psychological make up - you need to have psychological measures. I don't think brains can be linked directly to the type. Nardy's work is a nice try.
School of Associative socionics: http://socionics4you.com/
Not sure what you meant exactly and how does it relate to what I said. if you can say shorter just Ne - essence, please, do. With sensing type you need to be more direct as we do not read between the lines well.There's an interesting game you can play. Someone outstretches their arm to the side. Another party pushes down the arm.
You then repeat this, with the person with the arm to their side repeating i am strong i am strong i am strong. And pushing arm down. Then you do the same again repeating i am weak i am weak i am weak.
I assume it works a lot better on suggestible people than unsuggestible. But it does work. Even when people don't want it to
You can also play various games on top of it. Like you push the persons arm down, and say "You are sexy" to them and suddenly they lose strength. You tell them you hate them, they gain strength etc.
The power of positive suggestion is real. If you say you can do something it makes it easier to do something than if you say you can't do something. Which is one of the reasons it's important to remove in people negative thought patterns if you want them to be positive and capable.
This also means that when doing tests biases can come out as well. And these can change depending on how people look at the test. With people getting more comfortable with tests after repetition goes it means it's usually best to throw out the first few results. But it also means that if order is random etc, things can trigger people and distort. And over time people are often in different headspaces etc.
School of Associative socionics: http://socionics4you.com/
I am going on holls but will come back and comment. Please. use the tests and look for 3 points:
1) how well coincide the results of the tests if you repeat them separately.
2) how well coincide the results of different tests.
3) how well do the results relate to the personal opinion and the opinion of the others about the type.
Bare in mind that if the person will come out as a particular type on the colour test that mean his personal choice and not the choice of the test. Test operates on a simple programme and heavily depends on the choice of the person.
If the results will be all over the place - the person does not see his type adequately and not to be trusted in self-evaluation.
I will try today to make a video on how to answer SAS-questionnaire for video-recording and you can use it for the purpose of diagnostics.
School of Associative socionics: http://socionics4you.com/
Ok Ok, I read your messages. I understand how colour and shape can be used to type and why it is a good thing.
Thanks for your answers it's clearer now.
Basically I was saying that people can be distorted easily. And finding the "essence" or what is innate in people can be difficult in a particular setting. And it can change depending on the setting. Maybe another example would help: If I write with my left hand I can make spelling mistakes. If I write with my right hand I don't. If I type and engage both hands I can or cannot depending on various other factors. So just sitting at a computer can change the way someone answers a test, compared to standing up and speaking to someone. And if standing up and speaking to someone, who is asking can influence how one answers questions too.
thnx for your feedback. From what I've seen you use subtypes in the form of "support TPE". I wonder ...in your theory could someone have a subtype from the same TPE category? --- for instance EII with ESI subtype or there would be too much incongruence due to "classic" Socionics aspects (such as polr vs creative)Solaris if you are into bright rich colours and like strong contrasts it is more about Ego- type. But you get a SEE on the colour test which is Id type. And leading Superego on the Pattern test. Two last results suggest leading statics and hence a static type. The pattern test also points to strong present of introversion.
If we combine introversion and statics we get automatically the third basic feature - rationality. Statics+ introversion=rationality. The result coincide with the type stated in your avatar. You don't need to stick to one colour to validate a fancy branch of socionics. You test results did this for you.
Solaris, very good question. For the purpose of diagnostics in order to avoid confusion I consider subtype at the level of TPE- groups. It is possible to determine the subtype within one TPE group but it is not necessary. I explain why. We need to go back to the history of sub-type theories.
Originally subtype was determined by either the first (programme) or second (creative) functions. This was a subtype within one TPE-group. LSI -Maxim Gorky type - ISTj either-LSI or
-LSI.
The
However, if we use the different TPE we can also determine the subtype by the first two functions. TPE -system is universal in this sense. If LSI has introverted (superego-superid) or static profile (superego-id) he has two possible subtypes with leading functions either(SLI-ISTp) or
. This will be
But because the difference between the types in the same TPE group is minimal I omit the old system of subtypes. I consider the types within one TPE group similar enough because the share the same TPE-values. In terms of Jung terminology they have the same personality orientation: static rational introverts. But for the sake of interests you can always add this feature. You can say that LSI with subtype LSE is logical LSI while LSI with subtype SLI or SLE is the sensing one. The most interesting what you get is a psychodynamic profile which is only possible with different TPE. This is something new.
School of Associative socionics: http://socionics4you.com/
The TPE approach explains why and how we come to differentiate between the subtypes based on either programme or creative within one TPE group. It provides rational behind it. I guess before that socionists could use other explanations. If LSI is rather extroverted it could be a sign of a strong creative
From TPE- system we can judge it differently. Extraverted LSI means that he has either Ego or Id as a TPE-subtype. We do not confuse leading TPE with supportive TPE. We do not mix and match two different levels TPE with functions which DCNH does.
In DSNH you have a mixture of both: LSI -N and LSI -D,S, H. If I type somebody in DSNH as LSI- Creative subtype and you type the same person as SLE -normative we shall never be able to resolve this issue. It is because DSNH-system is not used to determine the type but only the subtype. That means you have to determine first the type by whatever means and only then suggest the subtype also by whatever means - by observation and based on the description. It does not give the rational why the person has this or that subtype - it does not have psychodynamic profile, no concept as such, just descriptions.
School of Associative socionics: http://socionics4you.com/
Is it possible to change the link on the first page in the first post - to delete the old link to the test and add the new link?
Does anybody remember the link to VI socionics test? I mean the test where you decide between photos of people.
School of Associative socionics: http://socionics4you.com/
http://www.sociotype.com/tests/
Extended Socionics test.
Sadly, it did not work for me - it froze on the pictures.
School of Associative socionics: http://socionics4you.com/
Dear all, I have great news for you - I have published yesterday Nonverbal socionics test and it seems to work fine! Check it out but do not forget to register otherwise - no result.
Please leave your results here or at my forum.
I already had the nonverbal test “Patterns” to determine TPE Group and general psychodynamics. This is the first test of a future series of nonverbal tests to determine the type of personality based on the concept of associative socionics. I do not expect this test to be more accurate than the verbal tests in general. Its uniqueness lies in the fact, that this is it the first “visual” test of this kind, which does not require a lot of time and verbal evaluation. Test lays a new direction in socionics psychodiagnostics – nonverbal testing. This in itself a huge step forward since socionics ceases to be a “science of experts” and enters the boundaries of experimental science. Please, leave your comments and share your thoughts about it – this will help to improve the quality of the future tests.
Please, post your results here and do not forget to mention if it fits with your opinion of the type. I will also appreciate if you can share the link to the test in a wider social network- thank you!
http://socionics4you.com/post-4754?lang=en
http://socionics4you.com/smforum/ind...pic,655.0.html
School of Associative socionics: http://socionics4you.com/
Doesn't work when I log in in english. I do the test but at the end I get a red message in russian and I need to redo the test, i get no resultsDear all, I have great news for you - I have published yesterday Nonverbal socionics test and it seems to work fine! Check it out but do not forget to register otherwise - no result.
Please leave your results here or at my forum.
I already had the nonverbal test “Patterns” to determine TPE Group and general psychodynamics. This is the first test of a future series of nonverbal tests to determine the type of personality based on the concept of associative socionics. I do not expect this test to be more accurate than the verbal tests in general. Its uniqueness lies in the fact, that this is it the first “visual” test of this kind, which does not require a lot of time and verbal evaluation. Test lays a new direction in socionics psychodiagnostics – nonverbal testing. This in itself a huge step forward since socionics ceases to be a “science of experts” and enters the boundaries of experimental science. Please, leave your comments and share your thoughts about it – this will help to improve the quality of the future tests.
Please, post your results here and do not forget to mention if it fits with your opinion of the type. I will also appreciate if you can share the link to the test in a wider social network- thank you!
http://socionics4you.com/post-4754?lang=en
http://socionics4you.com/smforum/ind...pic,655.0.html
Mega, you need to be registered on the website.
School of Associative socionics: http://socionics4you.com/
O, actually, the problem may be different - the programme is confused and cannot figure out your type. Does it sound right? Have you got big doubts about your type?
School of Associative socionics: http://socionics4you.com/
Looking at your profile picture I would suggest Superid type and could be SLI or ILI.
School of Associative socionics: http://socionics4you.com/
this is what I get : Подтип ТПЭ не определен. Рекомендую повторить тест еще раз.
yeah ok, doesn't know what i am. Will redo it lal
edit: fuck this shit, i keep getting it, fuck ur test :-D. Some really great pictures in it thought, esp all of the painted women <3,
Interesting test:
Type: Balzac, Superid
Subtype: Robespierre, Superego
Profile: Introverted
69% - Dynamic
31% - Static
8% - Extroversion
92% - Introversion
29% - Rationality
71% - Irrationality
50% - Logic
50% - Ethic
32% - Sensation@Olga, I got Ip profile (Introverted) for the TPE test and IEI for the pattern one.
68% - Intuition
I tried the non-verbal again, got almost the same result, but still 50/50 for logic/ethic
Last edited by Persephone; 03-15-2015 at 02:51 PM.
First result:
Second result:Subtype TPE is not defined. Recommended to repeat the test again.
Third result:Subtype TPE is not defined. Recommended to repeat the test again.
I pretty much know what I like and what I don't like. It only changed like one picture for each new test that I took. I will probably get the same result even if I take it ten times, unless more pictures are added for each repeat test.Subtype TPE is not defined. Recommended to repeat the test again.
Edit:
Fourth test:
Subtype TPE is not defined. Recommended to repeat the test again.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
I finally got a result on my fifth try after the program offered more image choices. I usually get IEI on your tests and that is what I can identify with most out of all the types. I liked getting ILI on this though.
The Result
Type: Balzac, Superid
Subtype: Robespierre, Superego
Profile: introverted
Balzac
The intuitive logical introvert (ILI). The Critic. ILI have the Ability to abstract and Philosophical Thinking, Noticing contradictions in Conclusions and Pointing Them to others (Critics). There is always logical reasoning behind their conclusions. ILI are able to see the ways to get the profit, often they do not take the opportunity. They are naturally sceptical and can pour the cold water on someone whom they believe to be overenthusiastic. ILI are often sceptical about themselves and their own potential too. They appear to be shy, reserved and unenthusiastic.
Robespierre
The logical Intuitive introvert ( INTJ). The Analyst. Often LII are perfectionists, See the World as A Single Structured system, WHERE All the Elements are Logically Interconnected. People of this type strain after order and logic in their own mind and around them. LII are able to pay attention to details and work accurately. They have very stiff principles and ideas of justice. These are based on their logic and therefore on the idea of fairness, but not on the moral rules of the society or family. They are ready to defend their principles and will not walk past something they see as injustice. LII put their principles higher than their own interests or interests of their family and the close ones. The Analysts are able to see multiple potential outcomes and are seeking knowledge in wide spectrum of topics. They prefer abstract theories and are a lot less interested in their practical implementation.
Distribution graphs signs
TPE
82% - Dynamics
18% - Statics
14% - Extraversion
86% - Introversion
31% - Rationality
69% - Irrationality
Functional
55% - Logic
45% - Ethics
22% - Sensor
78% - Intuition
Charts domination TPE
39% - Superid
24% - Superego
20% - Ego
17% - Id
Last edited by Aylen; 03-14-2015 at 06:36 PM.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Type: Super-Id
Subtype: Jack London, Ego
Profile: Dynamic
TPE:
- 100% Dynamics
- 17% Extraversion -- 83% Introversion
- 43% Rationality -- 57% Irrationality
Functional:
- 76% Logics -- 24% Ethics
- 21% Sensor -- 79% Intuition
[No Type Description]
[Subtype]
The logical intuitive extravert (LIE). The Entrepreneur. LIE are the Best at hands on tasks, Perceive the World as full of Possibilities for Profit. They know how to solve a problem in the most efficient way, how to use the resources and take into account luck, coincidences and trends. LIE quickly adapt to changes and might switch from one occupation to another if they feel the previous position has exhausted all possibilities. They like to see real-life implementations of their projects and are not interested in completely abstract theories. LIE prefer to earn more rather than to spend less and are happy to spend big sums of money on their life-style and hobbies. They prefer big tasks and work on impulse rather than to do a routine work and might lack attention to the details. The Entrepreneurs are charismatic, well organized, have the foresight, think about the consequences of their actions and avoid unnecessary risk.
Have I just been dissociated from a specific type? Am I just a temperament now?
Have a different opinion on my type? Message me or tell me.
@Aylen, got it 4 times too. on the fifth i stumbled upon Balzac and Jack London as subtype, 31% SuperId and 28% Ego I think.
After the 4th try:
Type: Superid
Subtype: Robespierre, Superego
Profile: introverted
Robespierre
The logical Intuitive introvert ( INTJ). The Analyst. Often LII are perfectionists, See the World as A Single Structured system, WHERE All the Elements are Logically Interconnected. People of this type strain after order and logic in their own mind and around them. LII are able to pay attention to details and work accurately. They have very stiff principles and ideas of justice. These are based on their logic and therefore on the idea of fairness, but not on the moral rules of the society or family. They are ready to defend their principles and will not walk past something they see as injustice. LII put their principles higher than their own interests or interests of their family and the close ones. The Analysts are able to see multiple potential outcomes and are seeking knowledge in wide spectrum of topics. They prefer abstract theories and are a lot less interested in their practical implementation.
69% - Dynamics
31% - Statics
17% - Extraversion
83% - Introversion
36% - Rationality
64% - Irrationality
56% - Logic
44% - Ethics
21% - Sensor
79% - Intuition
:skeptical:
(My self type: SEI/IEE)
Last edited by Pink; 03-15-2015 at 03:25 AM.
@Words didn't get results 3 times then he got EIE, took it again and got LII. I took again and got LII by choosing images I didn't like but they were the best between the choices given. I think I know which images are "ethical" but I didn't find them very appealing. I mostly went for the abstract and the faery tale looking images.
Last edited by Aylen; 02-16-2018 at 05:12 PM. Reason: correction EIE
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Thank you and sorry for the test playing hard to get. I will try to understand what is going on with the test. Please, make sure that you mention how you type yourself because I collect information for statistics. I would like to have results of 100 people or so to see what is the tendency for this test. I also will try to improve in the next few days and I will let you know when it is worth to try again but hopefully not 4 times trying. it must be some mistake in the programme.
School of Associative socionics: http://socionics4you.com/
I took the test twice, both times got ILI (first time, I had ILE subtype, second time I had LII subtype).
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
