# Socionics Test Attempt 4



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

TheGrayInk said:


> I was thinking more along the lines of people most sure their type verifying the test, hopefully without any confirmation bias coming into play. This way people unsure may be able to use this as a frame of reference.
> You'd need to make this a career to address the issues of test taking. The only objective test I could think of is one that measures user actions while following some instructions.


Half of those most-sure will be those typing themselves as better versions of themselves. The other half will cancel them out. 

You will be, in whatever way, even posting them on here, making a judgement to decide accuracy. All judgments are subjective. It is better for you to clearly define your judgments to yourself, before spending time on tests that will pass/fail on your judgments. Otherwise, your tests will really be testing you, because you will be subconsciously determining your judgement criteria for accuracy as the tests take place in others. Think about "this is true, and I know this to be true" first. Just trying to save you some hassle.


----------



## TheGrayInk (Aug 21, 2012)

I've read that paragraph about 5 times and I'm still not quite sure what you're getting. The goal was to take dichotomies that I felt applied to me, word them in the most balanced way possible and see which answers people would pick. If someone of type X gets the result of X and someone of type Y gets the result of Y, and this is a fairly recurring theme I would assume the test was mostly accurate regardless of how I got to that conclusion. Heh just as I'm typing this I just realized I fall under the result-oriented dichotomy. Maybe that can better explain it than I can.

There's a good chance I won't be able to make this foolproof but I'm not too serious about it. If I got that serious about it probably wouldn't even be enjoyable. The input is appreciated though.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

thegreyink said:


> If someone of type X gets the result of X and someone of type Y gets the result of Y


Someone of type X... Someone of type Y...
My point is, we could all be wrong on this forum. If we're all wrong, and you are right about your type, the test will never "be right." To make your test, you first need to determine what you consider people's actual types are. Otherwise, you won't be able to know if everything "works right" or not. You're placing all your faith in the assumption that people taking the test know wtf they are talking about for themselves. Thus far, you, myself, and Ixim typed as "our types" via the test. Everyone else types differently. Are the 3 of us "aware of ourselves," or are the others? You're already making these judgments inside you're head. I'm simply suggesting that you think about the judgments you are making. Otherwise, you will be on Test 8, still facing contradictions, and still wondering who is actually whom.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Selfish/selfless is a dichotomy. It's not described in Socionics, but it exists. Because it exists, it must exist in Socionics as well. Half of humanity will selflessly accept their type. Half of humanity will selfishly choose a type that benefits them to be. Your test, as all tests, assumes the examined will answer factually to the questions and factually to their own type. You have no question that tells you if the taker is lying or is being honest. Half of the people, at least, have reason and willingness to lie. Being truthful/lying is a dichotomy as well. Socionics divides this in some shape or fashion, known or unknown. Until you decide what constitutes a factual answer versus a lie, your tests won't be complete.


----------



## TheGrayInk (Aug 21, 2012)

Sorry, I really don't think we'll come to a consensus on this. If all this personality theory is true, and it's really been getting surprisingly deep since going with SLI.. If we assume that both of us are correctly, I would be result oriented and you would be process oriented. This means, and this is the impression I'm getting, it probably seems like I'm working backwards where as you are working from the ground up. If we're in fact wired differently it wouldn't make much sense to try to convince each other to work in a different way. It's like a dog convincing a cat to play fetch.

Honestly I just wanted to make a test because none of the other tests worked for me, and make people question their type a bit more. Probably a LOT of sensors in MBTI that think they're intuitive.

If someone else were to come along *wink* *wink* and do the job, I'd gladly hang up my hat and take my business elsewhere.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

TheGrayInk said:


> Sorry, I really don't think we'll come to a consensus on this. If all this personality theory is true, and it's really been getting surprisingly deep since going with SLI.. If we assume that both of us are correctly, I would be result oriented and you would be process oriented. This means, and this is the impression I'm getting, it probably seems like I'm working backwards where as you are working from the ground up. If we're in fact wired differently it wouldn't make much sense to try to convince each other to work in a different way. It's like a dog convincing a cat to play fetch.
> 
> Honestly I just wanted to make a test because none of the other tests worked for me, and make people question their type a bit more. Probably a LOT of sensors in MBTI that think they're intuitive.
> 
> If someone else were to come along *wink* *wink* and do the job, I'd gladly hang up my hat and take my business elsewhere.


I would think it would be the opposite, with a lot of sensors in MBTI being intuitives in reality. The line drawn to decide the two is based upon questions asked. Really, all 4 dichotomies should be 50/50 in general population.

You should ask all the reinins that place duals together if they answer every question the same, then call them the same type (with a made up name) lol. That's what everyone is most interested in anyways lol. Then you can do descriptions for the intertupe relationships for those made-up types lol


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Well, I got SEI lol...


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

SLE for myself.



Entropic said:


> Well, I got SEI lol...


Inb4 you're a mistyped SEI with too much Ti.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

The_Wanderer said:


> SLE for myself.
> 
> 
> 
> Inb4 you're a mistyped SEI with too much Ti.


Damn.. So that's it...

/takes notes


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

Entropic said:


> Well, I got SEI lol...


Emo! You need to emote moar!


----------



## Psithurism (Jun 19, 2013)

*Unknown*

_4% Judicious, 1% Asking, 1% Positivist and 0% Tactical!_​_I don't know how but you broke it.
_

​Brutal.


----------



## TheGrayInk (Aug 21, 2012)

Verglas said:


> *Unknown*
> 
> _4% Judicious, 1% Asking, 1% Positivist and 0% Tactical!_​_I don't know how but you broke it.
> _
> ...


Whoah hold on, the only way that can happen is if a question went unanswered. I didn't think they would allow that.
I probably should've added a strength indicator to all the questions anyway. I'll do it right now.

The result would've been ENTp or ISTp.


----------



## Psithurism (Jun 19, 2013)

TheGrayInk said:


> Whoah hold on, the only way that can happen is if a question went unanswered. I didn't think they would allow that.
> I probably should've added a strength indicator to all the questions anyway. I'll do it right now.
> 
> The result would've been ENTp or ISTp.


Ok, I got ENTp this time. Thank you for saving me from the anguish.

On a side-note, I admire your determination in making these constant ''improved'' attempts. That being said, I would invite you to now take a well-deserved rest.


----------



## TheGrayInk (Aug 21, 2012)

All done, with that strength indicator. I probably won't take it much further than this.

Also I found two scoring errors in the judicious and positive dichotomies. So some of the results here are probably wrong from a technical standpoint. I did say it was a rush job...

That isn't to say you still won't get a crazy result. Dichotomies have a way of giving really off answers when the testing goes awry and that's one of the reasons I like it. Tests make you think being one letter off isn't a big deal but it really is.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

TheGrayInk said:


> All done, with that strength indicator. I probably won't take it much further than this.
> 
> Also I found two scoring errors in the judicious and positive dichotomies. So some of the results here are probably wrong from a technical standpoint. I did say it was a rush job...
> 
> That isn't to say you still won't get a crazy result. Dichotomies have a way of giving really off answers when the testing goes awry and that's one of the reasons I like it. Tests make you think being one letter off isn't a big deal but it really is.


I still think it would be funny to see people be like "oh, yeah!" if you had just the dichotomies that placed duals together haha. Since you've been doing this for a while now, why do you think Socionics even asks about dichotomies, if the supposed "answer" has nothing to do with the original dichotomies? It seems like people would naturally just pay attention that described them and their dual as being the same...


----------



## TheGrayInk (Aug 21, 2012)

Jeremy8419 said:


> I still think it would be funny to see people be like "oh, yeah!" if you had just the dichotomies that placed duals together haha. Since you've been doing this for a while now, why do you think Socionics even asks about dichotomies, if the supposed "answer" has nothing to do with the original dichotomies? It seems like people would naturally just pay attention that described them and their dual as being the same...


I think it might be more interesting to only use dichotomies that placed you with your conflictor. : )

My guess is dichotomies exist just to classify things even further. In a way they're kinda like quadras, well, I guess quadras are dichotomies since they're made from them. It's probably kinda interesting mixing around groups of people and isolating what common attributes pop up out of them. But I'm not too fluent in actual Socionics research, so naturally I don't have a clue. Gulenko seems to really be digging into it though (Romance Styles, DCNH, Temperaments....)

I do think Dichotomies are more objective in a way. A description that says, oh you adjust to peoples mood, you don't think to prepare for everything , and you change your mind easily, would feel kinda empty though it would apply to both an ENTj and an ISFp. I could be short sighted on this, perhaps the type descriptions actually are based this way just with a little more pizazz! Still they definitely have their place, the judicious-decisive one surely helps with work related things.


----------



## selena87 (Aug 15, 2014)

> ILI (INTp) The Critic
> -13 Judicious, -1 Asking, -3 Positivist and 1 Tactical!


Damn ILI again I knew it. :laughing: No way am I an ILI.



Verglas said:


> *Unknown*
> 
> _4% Judicious, 1% Asking, 1% Positivist and 0% Tactical!_​_I don't know how but you broke it.
> _
> ...


Harsh... :crying:


----------



## Psithurism (Jun 19, 2013)

selena87 said:


> Harsh... :crying:


Hush now, friend. I managed to survive the ordeal. :')


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

TheGrayInk said:


> I think it might be more interesting to only use dichotomies that placed you with your conflictor. : )
> 
> My guess is dichotomies exist just to classify things even further. In a way they're kinda like quadras, well, I guess quadras are dichotomies since they're made from them. It's probably kinda interesting mixing around groups of people and isolating what common attributes pop up out of them. But I'm not too fluent in actual Socionics research, so naturally I don't have a clue. Gulenko seems to really be digging into it though (Romance Styles, DCNH, Temperaments....)
> 
> I do think Dichotomies are more objective in a way. A description that says, oh you adjust to peoples mood, you don't think to prepare for everything , and you change your mind easily, would feel kinda empty though it would apply to both an ENTj and an ISFp. I could be short sighted on this, perhaps the type descriptions actually are based this way just with a little more pizazz! Still they definitely have their place, the judicious-decisive one surely helps with work related things.


Well, conflictors are a form of opposite, and opposites are supposed to collapse into each other. I guess that collapsing on that end would really just be a different personalities version of the "correct collapse." Are they supposed to just magically all be the same thing regardless of viewpoint? What would even be the point of the dichotomies in the first place, if they're all just arbitrarily chosen by the originator? We need us a Master Dichotomy Universal Independent of View list!!! Now, to find us someone independent of view... I recommend turtles. Turtles only peek their heads out when it's safe lol


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

LSI (ISTj) The Inspector

-15 Judicious, -7 Asking, 3 Positivist and 1 Tactical!

_Neighboring Results
ESFj More relaxed state
INTp More negative
INFp Prefers to dialogue
ENTj More fixed goals_

Looks like I almost got LIE on this test. Then SLE as next possibility.


----------

