# Socionics Profile is scarily accurate



## 58609 (May 15, 2013)

I have been exploring my personality my whole life, but I tend to stay away from tests because they are often to vague. To cite an example, I am supposed to be an Ophiuchus or Sagittarius according to the zodiac, but I fit the descriptors of every sign in some way - this type of hoo-ha deters me. Then, there is always the matter of language meaning; how dare a test proclaim that I am either artistic OR realistic when I am quite sensibly both.

HOWEVA! I digress. . .

MBTI and associated tests seem to generate fairly accurate results. I was impressed with how precise and accurate the socionomics test on socionomics.com was. Apparently I'm an EII: Socionics Types: EII-INFj

Somehow the computer knows I'm horrible at time management and have trouble taking hints from women.

I'm on to you, computer! I know you're watching!


Oh yeah, and if anyone else found this test or other tests to be particularly accurate, please share.


----------



## TigerFella (Dec 12, 2013)

They are ok on the accuracy spectrum, but not the best. I found them 'lacking' in describing rarest types. Generalizations for most common are often very accurate.

I think they should be updated for 2014 society since most of things have changed and apply to other types too.

Like, there's plenty of introverts on web nowdays and they act differently than in real life, their behaviors are more extroverted etc.


----------



## 58609 (May 15, 2013)

I know what you mean. I don't necessarily think this test is precise enough to pin down rare personality types (like myself), but it was much more correct than it was incorrect, even if it was a bit vague and failed to address certain issues.

On internet personality types: this is a very tricky subject! I'm more extroverted online, but I retain my personality. However, there are some people who use the internet to completely alter their identities; some even seek to replace their actual selves with their internet persona(s); e.g. - Furries.

I'm sure there are quite a few ineffable individuals floating around this forum. And really, I don't think any personalty is perfectly quantifiable. In the end it's subjective.

I like your brain, tigerdude.


----------



## TigerFella (Dec 12, 2013)

Yes, it is more 'in the ballpark' area. You have to make it accurate if you want to use it tho.

Everything IS subjective, we are only humans afterall.

Thanks


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Hehe. Hoo ha.

Hoo ha, indeed.


----------



## absyrd (Jun 1, 2013)

So according to Socionics you are Fi-dom. But on MBTI you type as an INFJ. Why?


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

Socionomics and socionomics.com is actually a thing and isn't socionics at all. xD


----------



## 58609 (May 15, 2013)

Well since you're all experts, why don't you educate me


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

absyrd said:


> So according to Socionics you are Fi-dom. But on MBTI you type as an INFJ. Why?





Philoscholar said:


> Well since you're all experts, why don't you educate me


*Here is why I think "INFJ is INFP":*

INFJ is INFP since most INFJ profiles you find come from Keirsey's descriptions and what he describes is not MBTI.

If you read through his descriptions you will discover that they match the socionics type descriptions exactly. The problem however is that he disregards functions and information elements.

*Socionics INFJ is Keiseyan INFJ, but they both are MBTI INFP.*

<.< you are a Fi dom that makes you MBTI INFP and Socionics INFJ, it also makes you Keirseyan INFJ. You will fit INFJ descriptions, but how you function is Fi-Ne & Si-Te strong and weak valued functions.


There is a problem that most people view the J-P differences in organized vs disorganized, when in fact that has nothing to do with either of the 3 theories. MBTI J means one of the 2 main functions is Je (extroverted judging function) and J in socionics means that the first function is a rational function (Fi, Ti, Fe, Te)

*Even if we completely disregard Keirsey, MBTI INFP is Socionics INFJ since they both have Valued strong Fi & Ne, valued weak Si & Te.*

Beebe's model which pushes the other 4 MBTI functions into the subconcious makes them not valued compared to the first 4 and this is where model A becomes MBTI beebe's model.
*
The two systems are virtually identical, minus the J/P switch for introverts.*


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Or maybe you're just a confused enneagram 9? :tongue:

In all fairness though, you do strike me as a 9 or a 6.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

If you are Fi dom in socionics you where mistaken about being INFJ in MBTI.
It is that simple.


----------



## 58609 (May 15, 2013)

That is a very interesting analysis, @FreeBeer.

I have taken many different type indication tests, including the ones you mentioned, and I do sometimes score as an INFP, and even sometimes as an INTP or INTJ.

So perhaps I am a confused 9 after all? 

Honestly, though, I'm kind of a chameleon when it comes to personality classification. I often have trouble even finishing the tests because there is just something off about a lot of the questions; they contradict each other, or don't allow for how I really behave, which is usually some combination of whatever two extremes are being presented (tests with a scale are more tolerable, but still irritating).

While I definitely think that personality classification helps bring similar people together, I definitely do not think that any kind of personality profile will ever be able to fully represent me - or anyone else, for that matter, but me especially.

Maybe I'm just crazy ;


----------



## 58609 (May 15, 2013)

> If you are Fi dom in socionics you where mistaken about being INFJ in MBTI.
> It is that simple.


If you think some online test can ever contain my awesomeness, perhaps it is you who is "just that simple."


Sorry, I couldn't resist. I actually do respect your knowledge of this subject and I don't really mean what I just typed.......mostly.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

Philoscholar said:


> If you think some online test can ever contain my awesomeness, perhaps it is you who is "just that simple."
> 
> 
> Sorry, I couldn't resist. I actually do respect your knowledge of this subject and I don't really mean what I just typed.......mostly.


trap thread?


----------



## stargazing grasshopper (Oct 25, 2013)

Philoscholar said:


> ...Oh yeah, and if anyone else found this test or other tests to be particularly accurate, please share.


Check out this Wikisocion page Category:Type descriptions - Wikisocion

There's an excellent thread here at Personalty Cafe titled Personality Cafe Enneagram Test (NEW) by @_timeless_. http://personalitycafe.com/announcements/49401-personalitycafe-enneagram-quiz-new.html
The thread contains a link to an article The Freudian Theory of Enneagram 
The thread also contains a link for a test @_timeless_ developed to much better estimate personality tri-type & wings.


----------



## 58609 (May 15, 2013)

Thanks very much @stargazing grasshopper!

I'll definitely investigate.


----------



## stargazing grasshopper (Oct 25, 2013)

absyrd said:


> So according to Socionics you are Fi-dom. But on MBTI you type as an INFJ. Why?


Likely because Socionics estimates personality type based upon cognitive function rather than psychological preferences.
MBTI is a great resource, but a few times my Si vs Ni function got flipped & mistyped me as an intuitive rather than a sensor.
Obviously any test is only as accurate as the individual taking the test know themself, introspection & research will often sure up an estimate as being very reliable.


----------



## stargazing grasshopper (Oct 25, 2013)

hornet said:


> If you are Fi dom in socionics you where mistaken about being INFJ in MBTI.
> It is that simple.


Not necessarily so, first we'd need to consider the probability of human error when self typing, happens to the best of them.
Second is that the two systems don't probe similarly. MBTI estimates are based from psychological preferences whereas Socionics estimates are cognitive function derived. Both have their strong points & weaknesses.
I've been mistyped by both systems due to self testing. 

Have any of you taken the Jung/Enneagram Hybrid Test Free Jung + Enneagram Personality Test , somewhat akin to a slice of the best from both worlds

There's a whole page of varying tests SimilarMinds.com > Personality Tests but merely a starting point & shouldn't be taken as a diagnosis. Have fun!


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

@stargazing grasshopper

The combined test

Introverted (I) 56% Extroverted (E) 44%
Sensing (S) 51.28% Intuitive (N) 48.72%
Thinking (T) 52.78% Feeling (F) 47.22%
Perceiving (P) 65.71% Judging (J) 34.29%

*Your type is:* ISTP

*ISTP - "Engineer"*. Values freedom of action and following interests and impulses. Independent, concise in speech, master of tools. 5.4% of total population.

o.o test is vague and inacurate imo.

<_< the funny thing is that despite knowing the theory and how to type...I am unable to type myself...LOL. Maybe OP has similar issues.


----------



## absyrd (Jun 1, 2013)

FreeBeer said:


> *Here is why I think "INFJ is INFP":*
> 
> If you read through his descriptions you will discover that they match the socionics type descriptions exactly.


Subjective.



> The problem however is that he disregards functions and information elements.
> [/COLOR][/B]


Which is integral to the system of MBTI and Socionics. I don't particularly care for the Keirsey temperaments/4-letter dichotomy. MBTI follows the functions and Socionics does too. In Socionics the INFj's leading function is Fi and its creative function is Ne, which is identical in definition to the MBTI's INFP dominant Fi and auxiliary Ne. If you're looking at anything but functions then I think you are misled from the basic Jungian foundation.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

absyrd said:


> Subjective.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is integral to the system of MBTI and Socionics. I don't particularly care for the Keirsey temperaments/4-letter dichotomy. MBTI follows the functions and Socionics does too. In Socionics the INFj's leading function is Fi and its creative function is Ne, which is identical in definition to the MBTI's INFP dominant Fi and auxiliary Ne. If you're looking at anything but functions then I think you are misled from the basic Jungian foundation.


That is why I underlined "I think". It is my personal concusion given the facts.

That is what I said, MBTI INFP is socionics INFj, functionally they are completely identical not just Fi and Ne. 

MBTI just has a different way of labeling the types, but essentially both systems are describing the same types.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

stargazing grasshopper said:


> Not necessarily so, first we'd need to consider the probability of human error when self typing, happens to the best of them.


Correct but...



> Second is that the two systems don't probe similarly. MBTI estimates are based from psychological preferences whereas Socionics estimates are cognitive function derived.


Incorrect. Socionics is about information metabolism, which is also based on psychological preference, or it wouldn't deal with valued and unvalued elements. 



> Both have their strong points & weaknesses.
> I've been mistyped by both systems due to self testing.
> 
> Have any of you taken the Jung/Enneagram Hybrid Test Free Jung + Enneagram Personality Test , somewhat akin to a slice of the best from both worlds
> ...


You couldn't link to worse MBTI tests on the net?


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

stargazing grasshopper said:


> Not necessarily so, first we'd need to consider the probability of human error when self typing, happens to the best of them.
> Second is that the two systems don't probe similarly. MBTI estimates are based from psychological preferences whereas Socionics estimates are cognitive function derived. Both have their strong points & weaknesses.
> I've been mistyped by both systems due to self testing.
> 
> ...


You don't get it! :dry:
Tests mean nothing.

When I say *"If you are Fi dom"* it goes beyond any test and talks about *what is really there.*
Either the stone is there or not. *If it is there the other stone cannot occupy it's space.*
Stone being an analogy for type.

What I'm saying is that reality is what it is, and what you are in reality isn't affected by the tests.
Either these labels or principles point to real states of being that work the way Jung described them.
Or this is pointless! 
You are attacking the problem from a frame that assumes that it isn't really real.
*Well what is the point then? *
To see what four letter combination the server side script spits out on the other side?

*Would you care for a HIV tests with yes no answers? Or sliding scale answers?
Would you trust the result to correspond to you having virus in your veins or not?*

Yet somehow when it comes to such a complex problem as cognition,
then this approach becomes an acceptable alternative.
If I didn't believe that Jungian types described reality in an accurate way, 
I would throw this system away and move on. 
So far all I can say is that it has accuratly predicted my actions and issues.

Only way to know if these principles work is to learn them and observe reality.
Tests only factor in traits, and so do profiles.
A trait based approach can never tell you anything about your real type.

I make friends easily. So what?
I favor the surreal. So what?
I am a very organized person. So what?

These are all traits, it doesn't tell you anything about how the person process information.

Yes I will enjoy myself immensely when I avoid wasting my time on those tests.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

hornet said:


> I make friends easily. So what?
> I favor the surreal. So what?
> I am a very organized person. So what?


I wanted to mention something that underlines the fallacy of the trait based approach.
It is somehow believed that if you string along enough "*SO WHAT?"*
then somehow you end up with *"YES OFF COURSE"*.:crazy:


----------



## 58609 (May 15, 2013)

And even after you have found the most perfect test with the most perfect results, you can still find out more about yourself by doing some meditative introspection.

I see _all_ personality and intelligence tests as mere guides for self-discovery; no ultimatum will ever exist because we evolve until we die.


----------



## Pucca (Jun 13, 2012)

Philoscholar said:


> Oh yeah, and if anyone else found this test or other tests to be particularly accurate, please share.


When I took the socionics test and read the description I felt completely and utterly exposed. It was like someone had crawled into my brain and then explained the attitude I have toward the world and all my motivations. It was damned creepy...but cool.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

Philoscholar said:


> And even after you have found the most perfect test with the most perfect results, you can still find out more about yourself by doing some meditative introspection.
> 
> I see _all_ personality and intelligence tests as mere guides for self-discovery; no ultimatum will ever exist because we evolve until we die.


And after that, too. In a way, death is your ultimatum. But you can't benefit now from knowledge you'll have had in your future. So the next best think is to benefit from those who have already run til death. I think we just discovered the origin of ancestor worship.

Also, the milky way is a good analogy for Ni. Also, if planets are created by the accumulation of relatively dust-like matter, then is the milky way going to be a ginormous planet one day? Only time will tell. And I killed time. Suffocated it in my back pocket. What a pity.


----------



## 58609 (May 15, 2013)

tangosthenes said:


> And after that, too. In a way, death is your ultimatum. But you can't benefit now from knowledge you'll have had in your future. So the next best think is to benefit from those who have already run til death. I think we just discovered the origin of ancestor worship.
> 
> Also, the milky way is a good analogy for Ni. Also, if planets are created by the accumulation of relatively dust-like matter, then is the milky way going to be a ginormous planet one day? Only time will tell. And I killed time. Suffocated it in my back pocket. What a pity.



On the origins of ancestor worship... I think you'll find old Anglo-saxon spirituality pretty interesting.

And on galaxies becoming planets...

I think it's going to be the next stage in evolution, more like a star.


----------



## 58609 (May 15, 2013)

Also, we evolve after we die too.

_"And the antelope eat the grass..."_


----------



## 58609 (May 15, 2013)

Oh and @hornet,

That's kind of what I'm getting at.

What are we really trying to accomplish here by taking these tests? *To get to know ourselves.*

Why don't you just trust your own observation of yourself? You know more about you than anyone else. Period.

We should screw these tests and just sit down and have some tea.


----------



## Metal Fish (Jan 3, 2014)

The sociotype.com description of ILI was definitely a terrifyingly accurate description of myself. :S I prefer the way socionics organizes everything to the MBTI approach, but in the end they both use the same 8 cognitive functions to determine the same 16 types.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Philoscholar said:


> Oh and @_hornet_,
> 
> That's kind of what I'm getting at.
> 
> ...


I like to think of the theories like lenses.
Either reality still make sense viewed trough that lens or it doesn't.
The theory isn't reality itself, just a way to look upon it.
Sort of like looking trough an electron microscope, 
the image you see isn't "real", but it can tell you a whole lot about reality.

I think the tests can fools us and robs us of this experience.
You don't get to observe yourself in relation to these theories,
cause the tests have it all figured out for you.
Add to that the fact that MBTI have a set of unhealty stereotypes
and that many tests tries to pin one of those on you 
and you have everything else than getting to know yourself.
All you have is identification with a degradation of human spirit.


----------



## TigerFella (Dec 12, 2013)

FreeBeer said:


> *Here is why I think "INFJ is INFP":*
> 
> INFJ is INFP since most INFJ profiles you find come from Keirsey's descriptions and what he describes is not MBTI.
> 
> ...


I have noticed that a while ago (that certain parts come off like they were copied and just slightly adjusted and do not fit in perfectly and parts are way too generalized) and wasn't sure if it was just me.

Perhaps it was the sample size, but i think that FP FJ needs to be researched better in that aspect.


----------



## 58609 (May 15, 2013)

hornet said:


> I like to think of the theories like lenses.
> Either reality still make sense viewed trough that lens or it doesn't.
> The theory isn't reality itself, just a way to look upon it.
> Sort of like looking trough an electron microscope,
> ...



I concur.

Reality is subjective anyway, so anything you use to interpret reality that exists "outside yourself" can be thought of as a lens - although phenomenologically nothing is really separate from the self.

I'm glad you shared your thoughts on this because I have been trying to convey similar ideas lately without being very concise (I haven't written in a while and lingual expression has always been a challenge for me). I'm glad to see that someone understands what I mean when I babble on about how type tests "box people in" to extremely specific stereotypes if taken too seriously.

I would like to convey that I don't think degradation of the human spirit is really possible. What significance would the human spirit have without struggle? Maybe I'm being a bit too optimistic. . . ..


----------



## TigerFella (Dec 12, 2013)

I take it more of a magnifying glass than a lens.

You can really degrade everything if you 'zoom in' or 'zoom out' too much, I have seen and observed that.

But my personal approach is to look it from many different levels at the same time. I think that it is the only proper approach to have. When I look at let's say a bird, I can see how environment influenced it, I can see how their basic body functions work, how they interact with others, how much had to be changed to support flight, their interaction, senses, biology
To me, such approach is actually more 'humanising' than to just say: It's a bird, it flies. From basic human perspective.

Being selective about what you want to see is not the way things should be run.


----------



## 58609 (May 15, 2013)

TigerFella said:


> . . . But my personal approach is to look it from many different levels at the same time.
> 
> Being selective about what you want to see is not the way things should be run.



This is usually considered to be a holistic perspective - all-inclusive; looking at the world as an interrelated whole instead of as many separate parts. Kudos, kittyman~


----------



## Kabosu (Mar 31, 2012)

The idealized profiles have confused me since learning about functions, etc. To a lesser extent, crappy tests.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Philoscholar said:


> I would like to convey that I don't think degradation of the human spirit is really possible. What significance would the human spirit have without struggle? Maybe I'm being a bit too optimistic. . . ..


Yeah well I'm just putting a value judgment on it.
I can't say that I've been very positive on the types and their clashes lately.

Sort of become a very selective person that pushes my perspective out there to quickly weed
out all the boring people from the other types.
I'm beginning to predict things like saying, I don't think you will like my blog it is extremely boring.
Cause I know that my never ending quest to penetrate deeper into a topic will turn them off.
If they are certain types, usually I would sit quietly and listen to people of boring types blab on about whatever.
Because it was the polite thing to do.
Now I get up after a couple of minutes when I know that there is no hope of me ever vibing with them,
and announce "I'm going over here now!" 
I only stay if I'm in a hedonistic mood and only want easy pleasures, but meh I had so much of that as a kid.


----------



## TigerFella (Dec 12, 2013)

Philoscholar said:


> This is usually considered to be a holistic perspective - all-inclusive; looking at the world as an interrelated whole instead of as many separate parts. Kudos, kittyman~



Hah.
Holistic

I /hate/ that word

Too religious and bullshittery and I hate to be associated with those groups.


----------



## 58609 (May 15, 2013)

That is precisely why I think the tests should advice greater discretion when it comes to actually investigating one's personality. All the verbose generalization can really lead someone into an identity crisis if they read too much into it without relating what the test results say to their actual perception of themselves.


----------

