yea its possible. PM me and we can talk about it
This is a discussion on 80 items long questionnaire within the What's my Socionics type? forums, part of the Socionics Forum category; yea its possible. PM me and we can talk about it thanks...
yea its possible. PM me and we can talk about it
What about one sticky with 1 example of each type in it. So a sticky thread with 16 posts. Or two examples of each? that's perhaps better.
And they should be 99,9% sure about their type, and it also could be discussed and checked by others if they really are a good example for their type (in another thread of course not in the sticky, but I also would show the discussion thread link in the sticky so people can see why they took this one as an example).
In the end the best example of each type will be in the sticky.
I think we already have a lot of the questionnaires here so perhaps there are already good examples. Or those who are very sure of their type do the questionnaire...
EDIT: or the sticky could link to the threads like:
that's more orderly than searching the posts on different pages and so on.
as we only take 1 or 2 examples of each type we don't need to change the sticky later.
You can't read so many posts anyway. They are very long...
And we would always need to check if they don't mistype themselves. So I would rather take few examples where the community agree that it's a good example.
I fucking despise this questionnaire and it's obvious that an xLI wrote it. It's impossible to use. What you reason or believe is not actually more than peripherally relevant to what your type is. What really matters is how you relate to your beliefs, what you expect of yourself and people, and what you need from others to grow as a person/what you contribute to others. What stimulates you. There is no relationship whatsoever between this and a person's actual, you know, personality. An ExE could easily look like an LxI or almost anything else, because all you're doing is asking people to define concepts. I tried to go in and type people who'd answered this, but it isn't possible.
I would say the relationship is pretty decent. No questionnaire is perfect but it's clearly not fallacious either. I think it does a pretty good job in revealing people's differences in how they choose to answer, not what they actually think.There is no relationship whatsoever between this and a person's actual, you know, personality. An ExE could easily look like an LxI or almost anything else, because all you're doing is asking people to define concepts. I tried to go in and type people who'd answered this, but it isn't possible.
If you think it's not possible to type people based off this, I may argue this is more a problem on your end and does not render the questionnaire useless or invalid. Personally, if there's any questionnaire I find useless it's aestrivex's.
When I say "what matters" I'm referring to what matters to what a person's type is. Given that Socionics is an interpersonal relations matrix, it types along the lines of what, you know, will actually affect how we relate to other people. How someone chooses to answer a factual question will reveal their personal definition of that question, and little more. An Fi-leading type, an Fe-leading type, and a Ti-leading type, and indeed any other type, may well define a specific object of the psyche the same way. Without finding out what's important to people, what makes them tick, you have nothing usable. You need to get people to talk about themselves, or about something that will clearly reveal how they filter the world, to type them. And you don't need eighty fucking questions to do it neither.
I will still feel the impulse of crushing amoral people (from my perspective) despite my outlook on morality, I can't help it...they just piss me off so hard....hurt a cat for fun an I may consider breaking your legs (in a society where laws were irrelevant I'd probably act on the impulse & forgo attempting anything more constructive)...etc..
While the questions may be problematic, they do reveal something, but I admit answering them all took a lot of effort for very little gain.
Btw thx for breathing new life into the forums :p
The other problem is that everyone really uses all eight elements. If we're talking about level of use, we actually use our 2-dimensional functions (role and mobilizing) more than we do the 3D ones (creative, ignoring), because the former align with our natural orientation (introverted/extroverted) and they lack a situation vector, so we don't really know how to stop using them, or when it would be appropriate to do so.
For instance: I plan things out in tremendous and thorough detail, but only if they engage me. I get very sloppy about anything that I don't like the prospect of doing, and I will neglect my life if I'm depressed, etc. I actually use so much Te (when it interests me) that some people have thought I should be an accountant.
Though I'm not sure what to think of the idea of using all eight functions, which is something I had already read before, but I also realise that my understanding of the functions is more in line with Jung's than socionics (not that they differ too much) and that may be affecting my view on that perspective.
Basically, a "weaker" function is really just a lower-dimensional function, which doesn't affect our skill at it, it merely affects the level of finesse/sophistication with which we wield it.Though I'm not sure what to think of the idea of using all eight functions, which is something I had already read before, but I also realise that my understanding of the functions is more in line with Jung's than socionics (not that they differ too much) and that may be affecting my view on that perspective.
Likewise a "subdued" function is really just an internally-focused function, which doesn't affect how much we incorporate it into our lives, but does affect how much we incorporate it into our social lives.
Ok, this part is news to me. I tried searching for "subdued" here: Socionics - the16types.info - Dimensionality of Functions , hoping for an explanation of what you meant but I found nothing and the article is really long and I've never fully read it. I don't get how the fact that a function/IE is subdued means the function can be incorporated into our lives but not really to our social lives. If anything, I'd imagine the subdued functions are used when an external power forces you to do so, like in the case of a social situation with an opposite quadra that requires you to use that IE, which is a social context. On the other hand, I imagine the desire to use our subdued functions on our own to be very rare.Likewise a "subdued" function is really just an internally-focused function, which doesn't affect how much we incorporate it into our lives, but does affect how much we incorporate it into our social lives.
Regarding my view on using the eight functions, I understand that we use all of our 4 valued functions. However, on our interactions with other types we'll find information framed from the perspective of an unvalued function. Our reaction to that information depends on Model A but we will generally attempt to reframe that information from the perspective of our valued functions. So, for example, a Ti-dom may share a perspective of theirs that I find interesting and useful, but, in the process of assimilating it, where Ti has placed the emphasis on the subjective factor of logic, I will place it on the objective one, because my thinking is oriented at objects, it's Te. Or the information might even be useful to Ni. Basically, the other types of information can be re-interpreted to fit our valued functions, particularly the base.
For example, a Fe base may say "This person's actions are wrong due to how they've harmed this person!". Then, a Fi base will agree that the person's actions are wrong but will say "Because if I were in their place I would have felt so and so...". Then the Fe type will be like "Yes, but can you see how they've made this person feel?". And the Fi type will reaffirm his or her position. Fe wants to look at the values derived from outside themselves while Fi wants to look inside to find their values. And both types won't ever be in agreement because the other person keeps asserting their own perspective. Lots of conflicts happen due to this kind of mismatches.
This basically means that the opposite perspective is always rejected in favour of the dominant one but that valued perspective can be interpreted through other functions because you can understand a situation from different points of view. Thus, in a same situation, a person's going to look for Fi, the other for Fe, Te, and so on. Which is entirely in line with socionics, given statements like these:Socionics Functions: IdThe ignoring function is also called the observing, or limiting function. A person has very little use of this element, as it is the rival image of the base function, representing an antithetical approach to the same domain. It lies in the subconscious as a persistent annoyance to the individual. Therefore, he or she tries to ignore it. When lectured by another on the use of the ignoring function, the individual sees it as superfluous information, for he or she knows how to use the function well, but chooses not to use it in favor of his or her more convenient base function. Usually the base function creates byproducts relating to the ignoring function, but the way it describes such information is very carefully chosen to fit the view of the leading function.