[Jakuri]

I got EII.

Judicious>decisive is hardly surprising, lol. Low Se too. It's the one I relate the least.

 

[Vermillion]

ESE was most likely for me, followed by ESI and SEE. I was quite sure I'd get Fe dom on this test, because of how often I gave high scores to the questions about being sensitive and having strong emotions that I like to express.

My lowest scores were on ILE, ILI, and LII.

 

[BranchMonkey]

I got minus .50 for Ne and plus 1.00 for Ni so I am not sure why INFp would be "second" (very close) highest, but INFj resonates more than INTp which is what I got from the other Socionics test: the popular one; name isn't coming to mind but it's the one everyone recommends, and I took a few times.

 

[Scoobyscoob]

LIE for me, which isn't a surprise. Next most likely type is ILI. Then followed by LII, SLE, LSI and LSE all roughly around the third likely type. :smile:

 

 

 

[Jaune]

 

[BranchMonkey]

@Based Stickman

I think a lot of the description for ESTp fits, and because you are on the line between I/E, read the ISTp and factor that in. It makes sense. And then the personal history--your own as anyone else's is unique, so whatever traumas and such will skew the results a bit--reflecting you, not static test results. Glad you took this; glad I read it.

 

[Gorgon]

Highest scores: EIE > SEE > LIE > SLE
For information elements: Se > Fe > Te/Ne

Lowest scores (from lowest to least low): SLI > SEI > LII
IE: Si > Ti > Fi (really now...)

I agree with To_august's and Entropic's criticisms of the test. I think in order to increase its internal validity, it's best to separate the items into two categories: by strength and valuing of the IEs, and then score those separately.

 

[Scoobyscoob]

Highest scores: EIE > SEE > LIE > SLE
For information elements: Se > Fe > Te/Ne

Lowest scores (from lowest to least low): SLI > SEI > LII
IM: Si > Ti > Fi (really now...)

I agree with To_august's and Entropic's criticisms of the test. I think in order to increase its internal validity, it's best to separate the items into two categories: by strength and valuing of the IMs, and then score those separately.

Did you include your self-typing in the information about yourself? I stated I'm an LIE with 95% confidence and I'm wondering if that influenced my final result or not. Probably not but something to consider. My main problem with the test was the odd wording and questions that were somewhat difficult to relate to and answer without some degree of guessing. I ended up taking the test twice and while my result was LIE both times I think the breakdown perhaps is worth skipping. There may have some or even a lot of context that was lost in translation for many of the questions.

For your results it seems you answered positively to the Fe questions. Which makes me want to ask if you answered the questions as how you are or how did you answer based on qualities you admired?

 

[Gorgon]

Did you include your self-typing in the information about yourself? I stated I'm an LIE with 95% confidence and I'm wondering if that influenced my final result or not. Probably not but my main problem with the test was the odd wording and questions that were somewhat difficult to relate to and answer without some degree of guessing. I ended up taking the test twice and while my result was LIE both times I think the breakdown perhaps is worth skipping. There may have some or even a lot of context that was lost in translation for many of the questions.

Ahhh I did not, that probably would influence the results to some degree. I agree that the wording was awkward due to translation and the double-barreled questions.

EDIT: @Scoobyscoob I just saw your edit now.

As for the Fe questions, I did answer as how I am (as far as I know, my self-awareness is not always the greatest). For what it's worth, I've been vacillating between ESI-Se and SEE-Fi.

 

[Scoobyscoob]

Ahhh I did not, that probably would influence the results to some degree. I agree that the wording was awkward due to translation and the double-barreled questions.

Hm, maybe a person's self-typing would influence the result. Definitely awkwardly worded and haha yes, double-barreled questions would be the perfect way to describe the problem I had with more than a few of them.

 

[Scoobyscoob]

EDIT: @Scoobyscoob I just saw your edit now.

As for the Fe questions, I did answer as how I am (as far as I know, my self-awareness is not always the greatest). For what it's worth, I've been vacillating between ESI-Se and SEE-Fi.

Ah, sorry about the editing confusion. The reason why I asked is because of your breakdown by functions, but thinking back on the quiz, the Fi specific questions for ESI seem especially stupid now that I think about it. How many ESIs are going to relate to being so angry that they want to kick something at least once a week. :rolldeyes: I'm either not understanding ESIs or it seems Socionics still has an incredibly anti-Gamma Fi bias within the community.

 

[Silent Theory]

http://solti.pythonanywhere.com/report

Scored ILE. I've taken this test before and have gotten the same thing. I'm not an ILE - ENTp though and am pretty certain of LII.

 

[DavidH]

Result is ESI. The graph shows ESI tied with EII.

This test has questions which all seem targeted towards a specific audience. I answered 3 on most of the questions, because they did not pertain to myself. Most of the remaining questions were 2 or 1, due to the answers stating things which are very unusual.

 

[BranchMonkey]

@DavidH

I had to avoid my urge to choose 3 because the instructions, as I recall, indicated that too many 3s could result in a misread. So, I would reread those questions, remind myself of what 2 or 4 meant, then choose accordingly.

I don't know if retaking the test and trying that would give you a more accurate reading.

I agree that the wording of many questions was odd, and as I wrote in another post, the syntax and some other errors made it difficult for me to know what the tester was asking.

I got INFj, however, which was closer to my type than many other tests I've taken, especially many MBTI ones, so I think it could be a good tool if a native English speaker rewrote the test questions, and someone skilled did the proof-reading.

 

[DavidH]

@DavidH

I had to avoid my urge to choose 3 because the instructions, as I recall, indicated that too many 3s could result in a misread. So, I would reread those questions, remind myself of what 2 or 4 meant, then choose accordingly.

I don't know if retaking the test and trying that would give you a more accurate reading.

I agree that the wording of many questions was odd, and as I wrote in another post, the syntax and some other errors made it difficult for me to know what the tester was asking.

I got INFj, however, which was closer to my type than many other tests I've taken, especially many MBTI ones, so I think it could be a good tool if a native English speaker rewrote the test questions, and someone skilled did the proof-reading.

I could see how too many 3 answers would potentially give a misread. Falsely answering questions would definitely give a misread.

I understood the criticisms others made regarding the language, inclusions, and syntax.

The majority of the questions, though, didn't pertain to my life. To answer 1, 2, 4, or 5, when none is correct, would have created a profile of a non-existent person. Perhaps, it is due to generation gaps or culture gaps. After half the test, I had the firm impression of taking a personality test found in a Cosmopolitan magazine. The questions didn't pertain to myself, nor most other men I know. That is the impression the test gave me.

The ones I marked 1 or 2 on were questions that seemed disturbing.

 

[BranchMonkey]

@DavidH

I have working memory problems, i.e. I can't remember the exact ones that did not resonate though I can say that with my background and considering my age, I agree with you in terms of comparing the test to Cosmo.

I joke with my husband that many of the personality tests, especially on celeb dot com and helloquizzy remind me of Glamour magazine tests with names like Boost Your Sex Life Rating.

You know, based on your giving me a wake up call, if I have the energy, I may go back and retake the test choosing the 3s (there were many) that I did not choose because of the instructions.

If I do, I will share those results.

Thanks for responding.

~K

 

[DavidH]

@DavidH

I have working memory problems, i.e. I can't remember the exact ones that did not resonate though I can say that with my background and considering my age, I agree with you in terms of comparing the test to Cosmo.

I joke with my husband that many of the personality tests, especially on celeb dot com and helloquizzy remind me of Glamour magazine tests with names like Boost Your Sex Life Rating.

You know, based on your giving me a wake up call, if I have the energy, I may go back and retake the test choosing the 3s (there were many) that I did not choose because of the instructions.

If I do, I will share those results.

Thanks for responding.

~K

You're welcome. We agree, so I'll expand.

I could see how my wife or daughter would answer the questions. There weren't any questions relating to physical labor, sports, providing, etc. that pertain to my life. MBTI tests are more balanced.

The Se questions were often violent or psychotic. Some questions were delusional. Some questions were manipulative or abusive.

Half the questions presumed change, instability, or being emotionally volatile. This I presume to be the test adopting a Fe-Ni methodology to determine socionics type.

To answer this test has me think of a female EIE. Due to some of the disturbing questions, I could see this test as a Cosmopolitan magazine personality test combined with a Cosmopolitan magazine toxic relationships test.

 

[BranchMonkey]

@DavidH

I clicked on the original link (page 1); also found it on the Internet, and I got an error; couldn't retake it. But I, like you, see the tremendous flaws in many areas; that will have to suffice.

Also, nice to meet you.

 

[DavidH]

@DavidH

I clicked on the original link (page 1); also found it on the Internet, and I got an error; couldn't retake it. But I, like you, see the tremendous flaws in many areas; that will have to suffice.

Also, nice to meet you.

Nice to meet you, as well.

 

[Immolate]

I clicked on the original link (page 1); also found it on the Internet, and I got an error; couldn't retake it.

Clearing your browser history/cache may fix the problem.