@
Abraxas Concerning the cognitive functions (MBTI), you seem to expound upon them quite a bit for someone who can't take seriously others who use them; and while I'm no expert, you seem to be fairly good at explaining them. This comes off as highly inconsistent to me.
Maybe that's the problem. The inconsistency isn't with me or my behavior, it's your way of looking at things.
You're choosing to believe, and not recognizing, that I'm the kind of person who deeply studies something before I levy an opinion about it.
The fact is, I
do understand the concepts that make up the Jungian functions, and that's precisely why I can play around with them and show how they mean X or mean Y to give other people a better understanding of them if they so choose to believe in them.
This entire time, I've been giving my
honest personal opinion about what
I prefer and believe would help people. I'm not trying to denounce Socionics, and certainly not MBTI. In fact, I find MBTI laudable, and insofar as Socionics shares a lot in common with it, Socionics as well.
But I'm not going to tell people lies. I'm going to repeat what I was taught in college when I attended. I'm going to tell people what I read in peer-reviewed journals full of accumulated articles citing important studies done for over 50 years.
The simple fact is that I just
don't have citations like that to draw upon to back up Socionics.
Does that mean I think Socionics is false? No, of course not. It could be perfectly true. But can I, in good conscious argue that it IS true without myself being convinced of that based on strong evidence and decades of resource by literally hundreds of scientists? No. I'm going to point people in the direction of established theories first, and
then recommend, if they want to learn more, they might have a gander at the "fringe" theories.
It's like saying, I'm not going to introduce my students to modal realism and the "many-worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics without first laying out some of the basics of the Copenhagen interpretation and the core principals of physics themselves. To start people out with the wildly speculative stuff and pretend we all ought to bow down to it is just nonsensical.
Now, if you happen to have 50 years of dedicated research by
multiple peer-reviewed journalists reporting on and citing widely accepted empirical studies, then by all means, throw down. I
do (despite all surface appearances) really like Socionics and want to see it succeed as a theory. But has it? Arguably not, by comparison to others I've been espousing. I would really like to read some serious material backing it up.
I mean, you're a reasonable person, right? Help me out here. Chalk up some links to legitimate articles so I can read them and go, "huh, this guy has a point. Those studies look really legitimate and lend a lot of validity to the theory, maybe I ought to recommend this theory before I recommend this other theory which is currently the academic standard taught in the public institutions I attended, such as UC Berkeley for instance."