Socionic type tests

This page or section is incomplete. Additional contributions are needed.

This page will have links to different socionic type tests and critiques of all of them, as well as a discussion of the complexities of creating good type tests.

General goals and limitations

Type tests that formulaically calculate types only determine how the person feels at the particular time the test was taken, which may not reflect long-term trends in behavior (which is what type represents). For example, mood can have an effect on the results.

Prior knowledge of socionics can also affect how a person answers questions, both consciously and unconsciously. In a ideal situation the test should work on someone completely ignorant of socionics. People who have taken the test before may change their answers to accentuate previous results.

But it is even worse when a test does not produce the same results for the same person; this can lead to the perception that type changes, which contradicts one of the axioms of socionics.

Common sources of inaccuracy in type tests

Beyond a general critique of the concept of type tests, one can pinpoint certain correctable errors that repeatedly turn up in these kinds of tests. These include:

Imperfect definitions

Type tests are inherently limited by the definitions of dichotomies, IM elements, or other categories that the authors choose to use to generate the questions. Socionics definitions are not standardized and are often reformulated by each author.

Bleeding of definitions

Definitions of IM elements, and consequently questions aimed at assessing these elements, commonly use words and phrases that make them easily confused with other IM elements in the same temperament or club. For example, questions aimed at both Ni and Si might describe these as being easy-going. If the test is scored by trying to contrast these IM elements, the result may be a loss of reliability.

Ironically, some tests deal with this issue by adding up points across temperament and club. While that approach has been criticized as being too much like the MBTI, it may actually lead to a more accurate result, because of the bleeding inherent in the wording itself.

A more certain identification of the vocabulary corresponding to each element will help to phrase questions more accurately.

Distinguishing between functions

Type tests usually are based on definitions of IM elements that aren't equally effective for those elements in various positions within Model A. A common mistake is to assume that the same wording works equally well for the accepting and creative functions.

Wrong assumptions about quadra values

Tests that seek to type people based on their weak or subdued functions have a difficult task, because people cannot always respond accurately about themselves in these areas. Furthermore, people's relationship with non-ego block functions may be more individualized. The regularities may be clear only after one determines a person's type.

Another significant trap for tests is to assume that people necessarily have some sort of strength in their super-id block.

Examples

Aspect metaphor test

The aspect metaphor test was invented by socionist Vera Novikova from Moscow. The test consists of 8 combinations of words that belong to 'complementary' information aspects (e.g. and , and , etc.) but have no inherent meaning when put together (e.g. "panorama of inevitability"). The respondent must explain what each word combination means in free form. The tester then analyzes the answers to look for patterns in which information aspects the person emphasizes, which he ignores, etc. This test is generally used as an auxiliary typing method.

The test is based on the concept of "dimensionality of functions." No matter what type the test-taker is, 4 out of 8 word combinations in the test will consist of words that belong to one-dimension and four-dimensional aspects for his type. Theoretically, the responses to these word combinations should be especially revealing. Aspect combinations other than complementary would not produce as many contrasting results, it is hypothesized.

Contents

General goals and limitations