# What does this result mean?



## tantomoriremotutti (May 7, 2014)

I'm relatively new to socionics and I would like to learn more.
I made this test (Socionics Tests) and this was the result:

*YOUR SOCIOTYPE:* ILI-2Te (INTp)

*OTHER POSSIBLE TYPES:*
1. LIE (ENTj): 92% as likely as ILI.
2. LII (INTj): 85% as likely as ILI.
3 LSI (ISTj): 71% as likely as ILI.

*SMALL GROUPS:*
- QUADRA: Gamma
- CLUB: Researchers
- TEMPERAMENT: IP
- ROMANCE STYLES:
1. PRIMARY: VICTIM
2. SECONDARY: CAREGIVER​
*FIRST TIER DICHOTOMIES*:
- Introvert
- Intuitive
- Logical
- Irrational (Perceiving)

*SECOND TIER DICHOTOMIES:*
- Dynamic
- Obstinate
- Democratic
- Tactical
- Constructivist
- Farsighted

*THIRD TIER DICHOTOMIES:*
- Serious
- Decisive
- Negativist
- Process

*FOURTH TIER DICHOTOMIES:*
- Declaring

MODEL A FUNCTION STRENGTHS AND VALUES:


YOUIDEALFunctionInformation ElementRelative StrengthRelative ValueInformation ElementRelative StrengthRelative ValueLeadingNi31%31%Se31%31%CreativeTe44%44%Fi44%44%RoleSi19%19%Ne19%19%VulnerableFe6%6%Ti6%6%SuggestiveSe19%31%Ni19%31%MobilizingFi6%44%Te6%44%IgnoringNe31%19%Si31%19%DemonstrativeTi44%6%Fe44%6%

Would you be so kind to help me understanding this?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

It mean that the test thinks that you are an ILI-Te, obviously. The values just measure the potential strength or likelihood of what you scored in all the 8 functions of model A that would suggest that you are this type over other types.


----------



## GnothiSeauton (Sep 11, 2011)

Nice username, by the way.

I would add that tests aren't considered terribly reliable, although this particular one does do a thorough job addressing the finer details, and might be more accurate as a consequence. Wikisocion is a pretty good starting point to learn about Socionics. I'd suggest looking at Model A and Quadras and only later dichotomies, cognitive styles or even singular type descriptions. Your MBTI type will have influence on what type you identify with in Socionics, since the functions will *almost always* be the same.


----------



## tantomoriremotutti (May 7, 2014)

Entropic said:


> It mean that the test thinks that you are an ILI-Te, obviously. The values just measure the potential strength or likelihood of what you scored in all the 8 functions of model A that would suggest that you are this type over other types.


Ok, but from what I understand the strength order should be: Ni - Te in the Ego Block, while here is Te - Ni.
I'm absolutely sure to be an Introvert, does the fact that my Te is over my Ni a particular meaning?

I saw that sometimes someone is typed ILI-1Ni. What's the difference between ILI-1Ni and ILI-2Te?

And about the Ideal table, does it mean I'm attracted to ESFP? :blushed:


----------



## tantomoriremotutti (May 7, 2014)

GnothiSeauton said:


> Nice username, by the way.
> 
> I would add that tests aren't considered terribly reliable, although this particular one does do a thorough job addressing the finer details, and might be more accurate as a consequence. Wikisocion is a pretty good starting point to learn about Socionics. I'd suggest looking at Model A and Quadras and only later dichotomies, cognitive styles or even singular type descriptions. Your MBTI type will have influence on what type you identify with in Socionics, since the functions will *almost always* be the same.


Thanks, could you give a hint about where to start? I just read the wikipedia page but I would like more informations.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

tantomoriremotutti said:


> I'm relatively new to socionics and I would like to learn more.


The test has determined you to be ILI of strongly expressed logical subtype (+2Te). ILIs have first function of Ni and second function of Te. Regarding all the small groupings you can read about it here: Wikisocion - Small Groups

Other interesting and useful socionics links: http://personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/116599-socionics-tests-links-resources.html


----------



## tantomoriremotutti (May 7, 2014)

cyamitide said:


> The test has determined you to be ILI of strongly expressed logical subtype (+2Te). ILIs have first function of Ni and second function of Te. Regarding all the small groupings you can read about it here: Wikisocion - Small Groups
> 
> Other interesting and useful socionics links: http://personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/116599-socionics-tests-links-resources.html


Wow thanks that was exactly what I was looking for! Now I understand why INTps can be so different from each other! It seems to me that socionics is much more accurate than MBTI...


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

tantomoriremotutti said:


> Wow thanks that was exactly what I was looking for! Now I understand why INTps can be so different from each other! It seems to me that socionics is much more accurate than MBTI...


If you throw in enneagram types, wings, and instinctual subtypes that discloses quite a bit of diversity. Socionics makes a good addition to MBTI. MBTI is interesting for 1-2 years at most, but eventually it gets exhausted, while Socionics goes into many unexplored areas of MBTI so makes for a good continuation of study of types.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

tantomoriremotutti said:


> And about the Ideal table, does it mean I'm attracted to ESFP? :blushed:


Yes, it means the ESFP or SEE is your dual.


----------



## Aleksei (Apr 3, 2010)

mnis said:


> yes, it means the esfp or see is your dual.


esfp =/= see.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Aleksei said:


> esfp =/= see.


Depends on how you understand it. If SeFi ego in both systems, then they are equivalent.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

Entropic said:


> Depends on how you understand it. If SeFi ego in both systems, then they are equivalent.


You're correct but seeing as how sensors are heavily biased against in MBTI I can see where Aleksei is coming from. I could see ENxP+SEE being a popular choice. That is of course, plain wrong from a functional standpoint.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

MNiS said:


> You're correct but seeing as how sensors are heavily biased against in MBTI I can see where Aleksei is coming from. I could see ENxP+SEE being a popular choice. That is of course, plain wrong from a functional standpoint.


But then you aren't at all contradicting what I said -.- I would argue those people are just mistypes because they don't understand the N/S dimension in the MBTI, which is also extremely poorly understood and represented online.


----------



## Aleksei (Apr 3, 2010)

Entropic said:


> Depends on how you understand it. If SeFi ego in both systems, then they are equivalent.


Quoth Victor Gulenko:



> What do these signs mean—
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The only way this could be erroneous is if there's been something lost in translation along the way, the way everyone (or most people) understand the MBTI functions is erroneous, and they are effective equivalents to what they are defined in Socionics. Which is certainly possible.

If that is true, then it has two important implications: 1) a very large number of people who have typed themselves using the MBTI are mistyped (which would be unsurprising as many people are mistyped, period). 2) there is no use for talking of the MBTI and Socionics in separation. Which may be true regardless, and it wouldn't bother me except for the fact that so many people use concepts (erroneously) learned from MBTI in Socionics.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Aleksei said:


> Quoth Victor Gulenko:
> 
> 
> The only way this could be erroneous is if there's been something lost in translation along the way, the way everyone (or most people) understand the MBTI functions is erroneous,


Yes, people erroneously understand most things. 



> and they are effective equivalents to what they are defined in Socionics. Which is certainly possible.


They are equivalent if you look at it strictly from the perspective of how the functions operate based on the core idea Jung originally laid out which may take on different foci or perspectives depending on the system we talk about. Look at John Beebe for example, who does not even talk about what the functions are as much as how we relate to them in our environment e.g. archetypes. 



> If that is true, then it has two important implications: 1) a very large number of people who have typed themselves using the MBTI are mistyped (which would be unsurprising as many people are mistyped, period).


Yes, a majority are mistyped for various reasons but if their typing is based on taking a) a test or b) dichotomies, then yes, they are most likely mistyped. 



> 2) there is no use for talking of the MBTI and Socionics in separation. Which may be true regardless, and it wouldn't bother me except for the fact that so many people use concepts (erroneously) learned from MBTI in Socionics.


Well, I do think it's important to keep conceptual understanding and definitions apart e.g. don't use INFJ when we talk about socionics because we don't know if they mean an MBTI INFJ or socionics IEI which may, depending on how these labels are used, may not mean that they are of equivalent nature though I may argue they are but I can respect if people don't experience it as such.


----------



## tantomoriremotutti (May 7, 2014)

Aleksei said:


> Quoth Victor Gulenko:
> 
> 
> The only way this could be erroneous is if there's been something lost in translation along the way, the way everyone (or most people) understand the MBTI functions is erroneous, and they are effective equivalents to what they are defined in Socionics. Which is certainly possible.
> ...


I agree with you, but Is it really so difficult to understand your type?
Eventually there are only 16 types every one pretty different from each other (i don't think that someone can easily confuse an ENTp with an ISTp).
I think that every one can easily recognize if they're introvert or extrovert. With a little effort you can understand if you're an N or a S type. Is not that difficult recognize if you're an NT, an NF or an ST or an SF.
In this very simplistic way you can get to two types (es. INTP and INTJ).

If you fit the description of INTx types, why should you think that you're mistyped? Finally you should study the functions to understand the J/P attitude, but I don't think is that difficult to determine the first three letters. Look back to your life, see what you prefer, see how you think.
It's true, a single stereotype is not sufficient to type you XXXX, but if you present hundred of stereotypes of XXXX there's a certain probability that you are of that type, especially if several different tests typed you so.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

Aleksei said:


> Quoth Victor Gulenko:
> 
> 
> The only way this could be erroneous is if there's been something lost in translation along the way, the way everyone (or most people) understand the MBTI functions is erroneous, and they are effective equivalents to what they are defined in Socionics. Which is certainly possible.
> ...


The way i see it, both systems formed from the original Jung functions, and the problem is that the definitions haven't been developed enough to say either are absolutely accurate. The fact that both systems use different definitions doesn't change the function itself. A true top Se user uses that function regardless. So, someone can claim they are an ESFP in MBTI and SEE in Socionics and be accurate in that claim, even if they don't fit either description.

I think it would be problematic if one of the systems denied Jung's theory and started from scratch, but that's not the case. Both systems refer back to Jung. The intention for both was to realize his theory, whether either got it right is yet to be determined. Once people study both systems, it becomes obvious that Socionics has done a better job, but not everyone is going to care enough to take their learning to the next level. Hence, the mistypes and poor examples.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

tantomoriremotutti said:


> I agree with you, but Is it really so difficult to understand your type?
> Eventually there are only 16 types every one pretty different from each other (i don't think that someone can easily confuse an ENTp with an ISTp).
> I think that every one can easily recognize if they're introvert or extrovert. With a little effort you can understand if you're an N or a S type. Is not that difficult recognize if you're an NT, an NF or an ST or an SF.
> In this very simplistic way you can get to two types (es. INTP and INTJ).
> ...


Based on the amount of people who identify their type as "unknown" your argument doesn't hold true.


----------



## tantomoriremotutti (May 7, 2014)

Kathy Kane said:


> Based on the amount of people who identify their type as "unknown" your argument doesn't hold true.


Are you cutting off the possibility for someone to be lucky? 
My question is, if you was tested as XXXX, you fit the description, you study the functions and recognize them in your everyday life, are there still reasons to doubt just because others had difficulties to type themselves?
Does the fact that most people can't type themselves mean that if you don't have any trouble in doing that it's because you're doing it wrong? Like with math?


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

tantomoriremotutti said:


> Are you cutting off the possibility for someone to be lucky?
> My question is, if you was tested as XXXX, you fit the description, you study the functions and recognize them in your everyday life, are there still reasons to doubt just because others had difficulties to type themselves?
> Does the fact that most people can't type themselves mean that if you don't have any trouble in doing that it's because you're doing it wrong? Like with math?


I don't believe in luck, so there's that. 

My first comment to you was a general statement. You can't say, "I think that every one can easily recognize if they're introvert or extrovert." when so many people on this forum have no clue how to recognize that. You might feel that way, but clearly others do not. 

I wasn't saying a quick personal identification of type means you're doing it wrong. I only responded to your comments about each aspect of type being easily seen in oneself, which isn't the case for a lot of people. Though, the stereotypes of MBTI can only take a person so far. At some point they become meaningless and generic and people get discouraged.


----------

