Empirical Justification of Intertype Relationship Theory?

[wym123]

Is there any empirical evidence that the whole Intertype relationship hypothesis/theory works? It's a very thorough framework in that it attempts to define the general characteristics of every possible relationship between every possible pairs, but my experience with such frameworks is that they are usually too elegant to have any actual relevance to reality, especially if they were conceived through, quite possibly unjustified, extrapolation of very small set of observations. I am not sure whether this is exactly the case for the Intertype relationship hypothesis/theory though.

However, from hearing personal anecdotes in this forum, I am no longer skeptical that relationships between Duals work. To my amazement it is said that ESFj appear to be ideal for INTj, which is counter-intuitive to me. I always thought a T type would be more appropriate because then, INTj would not neccessarily have to deal with unreasonable responses in a relationship. But I suppose there is still much that I really don't understand.

So do people have any anecdotes or references that they can share about all relationship types except Duals that might give a more experimental look at the Intertype framework and its actual relevance to reality.

[niveK]

As I understand it, the intertype relations were formed in socionic theory before the typology was. The typology was created to help explain the whys of the relations. The typology shows how the functions are specific to the type.

Between two types, reactions to the symbology is different (excepting identicals, who have the same functional ordering). In duals, each type's ego functions perfectly compliment the other type's superid functions, which provides psychological support and energy. Activity partners are similar, but the ego functions overcompensate for the complimentary superid functions, so a temporary burnout occurs over a period of time.

Intertype relations do not directly define how people will relate, but rather are a predictor of how the differences in information processing will manifest and guide the relationship between two people of certain types.

[wym123]

Between two types, reactions to the symbology is different (excepting identicals, who have the same functional ordering). In duals, each type's ego functions perfectly compliment the other type's superid functions, which provides psychological support and energy. Activity partners are similar, but the ego functions overcompensate for the complimentary superid functions, so a temporary burnout occurs over a period of time.

The theory is nice and all but is there any physical evidence that they do work like that?

[Olga]

I have got Superego relationship (ISFJ-INTJ) with my partner and we do not have conflicts, we can have disagreements about our child. My husband believes that I am too soft and inconsistent with him and that is why he is winging if he wants something. He is right most of the time. That is my week point, I do like to avoid conflicts and can agree where I should be really more firm. On the other hand he can be too hard on a child too: he wants the child to be a small adult and prefers to use authoritarian methods. So I have to intervene from time to time and explain. On the whole carrot and stick work well togehter. I have read what kind of difficulties are predicted by socionincs for this type of relationship - it is all irrelevant to us.

[tcaudilllg]

Between two types, reactions to the symbology is different (excepting identicals, who have the same functional ordering). In duals, each type's ego functions perfectly compliment the other type's superid functions, which provides psychological support and energy. Activity partners are similar, but the ego functions overcompensate for the complimentary superid functions, so a temporary burnout occurs over a period of time.

The theory is nice and all but is there any physical evidence that they do work like that?

There is, but it is not complete.

There is evidence that the amygdala region of the brain controls emotional response. There is also evidence that there are at least eight functions in the brain that correspond to the 8 functions in Socionics. More than likely (and this is my intuitive guess, or hypothesis) the amygdala acts as an "emotional response circuit", heightening the state of the dominant (or conscious) functions when it perceives a human face. Accordingly, the maelstrom of the personal psyche is brought to a temporary state of order when it encounters the psyche of another person.

Recent research suggests that the brain is hardwired to respond empathically to images of the human face. (this is the engine of sympathy, empathy, and pity) This at least points to the potential for type logic to be empirically confirmed. It's all up to the neurologists. (and the rest of us to provide the tools they need to get the research done. Technology is a limiting factor now.)

Type does not mean you will have good relationships with people; those are about perceptions of trust, distrust, and indifference. (see Jung's "projection" theory) Type just demonstrates your cybernetic, or systematic, interworkings with them.

[Angel von Himmel]

There is, but it is not complete.

There is evidence that the amygdala region of the brain controls emotional response. There is also evidence that there are at least eight functions in the brain that correspond to the 8 functions in Socionics. More than likely (and this is my intuitive guess, or hypothesis) the amygdala acts as an "emotional response circuit", heightening the state of the dominant (or conscious) functions when it perceives a human face. Accordingly, the maelstrom of the personal psyche is brought to a temporary state of order when it encounters the psyche of another person.

Recent research suggests that the brain is hardwired to respond empathically to images of the human face. (this is the engine of sympathy, empathy, and pity) This at least points to the potential for type logic to be empirically confirmed. It's all up to the neurologists. (and the rest of us to provide the tools they need to get the research done. Technology is a limiting factor now.)

Geezo, talk about missing the mark ...

Type does not mean you will have good relationships with people; those are about perceptions of trust, distrust, and indifference. (see Jung's "projection" theory) Type just demonstrates your cybernetic, or systematic, interworkings with them.

That is true, though ...

Between two types, reactions to the symbology is different (excepting identicals, who have the same functional ordering). In duals, each type's ego functions perfectly compliment the other type's superid functions, which provides psychological support and energy. Activity partners are similar, but the ego functions overcompensate for the complimentary superid functions, so a temporary burnout occurs over a period of time.

The theory is nice and all but is there any physical evidence that they do work like that?

wym123, it all works in a series of of either inverse or exact modes of perceptions depending upon what functions are located where and in consideration to several factors:

1. That a person can not use a function as introverted and extroverted at the same time, one must either use it most of the time as introverted or most of the time as extroverted. It is impossible to do both at once.

2. If a person has a dominant extroverted function in a block, there will always be a slave introverted function serving it. It is true in reverse for introverted dominant functions.

3. According to model-a, there are 4 diffrent blocks of pairs of introvert and extroverted functions that play diffrent roles and do diffrent jobs. There are also conscious and subconscious blocks. Each conscious block has a pseudo subconscious block, which poorly tries to mimick its behaviour. These blocks are responsible for not only how we see our selves, but how others see us. How others see us and how we see others as opposed to ourselves are also heavily influence by the ordering of functions of blocks within other people as well as ourselves, and that is how the intertype relationships works and comes into play in socionics.

[wym123]

wym123, it all works in a series of of either inverse or exact modes of perceptions depending upon what functions are located where and in consideration to several factors:

1. That a person can not use a function as introverted and extroverted at the same time, one must either use it most of the time as introverted or most of the time as extroverted. It is impossible to do both at once.

2. If a person has a dominant extroverted function in a block, there will always be a slave introverted function serving it. It is true in reverse for introverted dominant functions.

3. According to model-a, there are 4 diffrent blocks of pairs of introvert and extroverted functions that play diffrent roles and do diffrent jobs. There are also conscious and subconscious blocks. Each conscious block has a pseudo subconscious block, which poorly tries to mimick its behaviour. These blocks are responsible for not only how we see our selves, but how others see us. How others see us and how we see others as opposed to ourselves are also heavily influence by the ordering of functions of blocks within other people as well as ourselves, and that is how the intertype relationships works and comes into play in socionics.

I suppose that (1) and (2) are simple and well-defined enough that they are very easy to observe in people, hence there is plenty of physical data to support those abstractions. (3) on the other hand is just more theorizing. Sure you can generalize the workings of the human mind into 8 different functions but how can you be sure that the interactions between functions actually fit with reality? Usually, the more elegant the theory, the more variables they ignore, which is why I really wonder whether intertype theory actually applies to real life. For example, consider your statement: "How others see us and how we see others as opposed to ourselves are also heavily influence by the ordering of functions of blocks..." What kind of role does intelligence and knowledge play? What about experiences and memories? I am sure those play significant roles and might severely weaken the predictive power of your statement about the functions to make it almost useless.

Basically, you can always pile a scientific framework with more and more hypotheses and theories to try to back it up but the real test is always lies in its predictive power. Olga's post, assuming that I haven't misread, show that the superego relationship is not accurate in any specific sense. Perhaps the only thing that the intertype framework predicted about the superego relationship is that the conflicts between them are not that extreme.

[wym123]

There is, but it is not complete.

There is evidence that the amygdala region of the brain controls emotional response. There is also evidence that there are at least eight functions in the brain that correspond to the 8 functions in Socionics. More than likely (and this is my intuitive guess, or hypothesis) the amygdala acts as an "emotional response circuit", heightening the state of the dominant (or conscious) functions when it perceives a human face. Accordingly, the maelstrom of the personal psyche is brought to a temporary state of order when it encounters the psyche of another person.

Recent research suggests that the brain is hardwired to respond empathically to images of the human face. (this is the engine of sympathy, empathy, and pity) This at least points to the potential for type logic to be empirically confirmed. It's all up to the neurologists. (and the rest of us to provide the tools they need to get the research done. Technology is a limiting factor now.)

Type does not mean you will have good relationships with people; those are about perceptions of trust, distrust, and indifference. (see Jung's "projection" theory) Type just demonstrates your cybernetic, or systematic, interworkings with them.

I am not really raising doubts about the existence of the eight functions but your post about the medical literature is particularly interesting.

[Rick]

I have experienced to varying degrees each of the socionic relationships --most of them at a close distance, having lived with about 40 people for a period of a month or more. In each case I can say that the functional and informational interplay "works." If it doesn't, I wonder if I have correctly identified the person's type. The interaction between these people (with me out of the picture) also seems to work.

The intertype relation descriptions that are posted everywhere are mostly fairly superficial -- few actually show what is happening at a functional level. There are a lot of possible external varieties of intertype relations based on a single underlying pattern of information interchange, so if you are looking at the right level, there don't seem to be any contradictions between reality and socionics. However, this "right" level is internal, semi-conscious, and very difficult to objectivize. It is much easier to slip back to the external level and talk about things like, "we get along together," "we argue a lot," etc. But at this level you will find apparent contradictions -- duals who break up, other partners who say they're a "perfect match," etc. etc. But when you get back to the internal level and subjectively experience the functional interplay, it all fits back together again.

[Dmitri Lytov]

As I understand it, the intertype relations were formed in socionic theory before the typology was. The typology was created to help explain the whys of the relations.

Incorrect. Augusta supposed existence of some "intertype relationships" when she only started to study interpersonal relations at the end of 1960s. She chose C.G.Jung's typology much later. However, the very C.G.Jung's typology exists since 1920.

There were several empirical researches performed by socionists a posteriori (i.e. when the theory of intertype relationships had already been established), e.g., family statistics of:
- Boukalov, Karpenko and Chikirisova, 1999
- Filatova, 2000
- A.Afendik's statistics of divorces, 2000?
Et cetera.

Alas, all of these materials have been published in Russian.

[indigoroom]

Yeah thanks for thae topic and the replies.

But when you get back to the internal level and subjectively experience the functional interplay, it all fits back together again.

I wonder how much time until people finally get this and stop trying to question the very basics of the intertype relations? i thought i was psych or something for seeing all this. I wonder if it can be type related - being able to distinguish the subjective experience? or people are just lazy/superficial? anyway,,,,.

[niveK]

As I understand it, the intertype relations were formed in socionic theory before the typology was. The typology was created to help explain the whys of the relations.

Incorrect. Augusta supposed existence of some "intertype relationships" when she only started to study interpersonal relations at the end of 1960s. She chose C.G.Jung's typology much later. However, the very C.G.Jung's typology exists since 1920.

There were several empirical researches performed by socionists a posteriori (i.e. when the theory of intertype relationships had already been established), e.g., family statistics of:
- Boukalov, Karpenko and Chikirisova, 1999
- Filatova, 2000
- A.Afendik's statistics of divorces, 2000?
Et cetera.

Alas, all of these materials have been published in Russian.

I meant socionic typology based from Jungian typology. Socionics does seem to flesh out the typology a bit more. But thanks for the corrections.

[Olga]

I see that people are simply satisfied with some results of the medical research and research in Russia. That might be people from those quadras who are happy to support the authority or a system as it is. I am from Gamma quadra and excuse me I am going to ask questions and undermine authority until i get a meaningful responce to a very concrete real life situation untill i get a meaningful responce and not just links to the research. What research? That one which supports theory of socionincs or that one that explains why it does not work in some cases? As for me, I do believe more in common sense than in what is written in the books. The research in psychology is never conclusive (100%). But socionic theory has already figured out everything and what is left just to swallow it - no need to doubt! Kinda a free of error book of instructions how to understand yourself and treat the others.


I can only believe in theory which is grounded in real life. Evry theory has its strengh and weakness. Where is the weakness of socioninc theory?
How can socionic theory explain why my third marriage is perfect and two previous ones with ESFP and ENTJ did not work? Please, don't tell me that I don't know the type of my husband or mine.
Please, give me the factors which can influence the relationship to the degree that socionics type interactions become irrelevant or lose their predictive power?
According to socionincs the relationship between ISFJ and INTJ are only possible if they keep big psychological distance. If socionics means that distance means not to live under the same roof and not to sleep in one bed than -this is rubbish. If it means something else...then it has to be stated clearly! Because there are lots of people who will trust the theory and will believe literaly in every word it says - and this is wrong (softly saying!).

[Angel von Himmel]

" What kind of role does intelligence and knowledge play? What about experiences and memories? I am sure those play significant roles and might severely weaken the predictive power of your statement about the functions to make it almost useless.

It does not weaken it at all, and I think that whatever point I was trying to make was lost with the institution of this passage. I think instead of trying to mental masturbate myself away from the point, as that statement seems to infer is happening, I'll just requote Tschauldig and underline what he said that I thought was important...

Type does not mean you will have good relationships with people; those are about perceptions of trust, distrust, and indifference. (see Jung's "projection" theory) Type just demonstrates your cybernetic, or systematic, interworkings with them.

Look at what I bolded ... it has to do with the conflict between the Id and the Ego that people face. The question you asked that supposedly weakened the predictive power of my statement has nothing to do with this.

[Olga]

I understand that trust, distrust and indifference or may be some other factors and psychodynamics can affect the relationship and make the presictive power of interaction to be useless. But I have not seen it stated clearly by socionics theory and why? If these factors are so important why not to emphasize them? Why to create and elaborate on something with the ingorence to the other factors which are so closely related to the subject of discussion? Why not to say something like that:
realtionships between ISFJ and INTJ are called superego and dont work because of this..... or they may perfectly work if this......!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I guess everybody will think then that the theory must be crap or would not take it serious. So far if your relationship fit to the predictions - then it is fine and if not - bad luck, nobody makes any attempt to understand or explain it. Again we lack on this site real life exapmles and analysis of real life realtionships or they burried somewere in the topics. Socionic has a power to influence people's perception of themselves and the other's but nobody really cares about the consequences of this impact (positive or negative). I find socionics highly prescriptive and biased as regards to intertype relationships. As if we are trying to understand how the brain works, what part of the brain moves a hand or a leg, elaborating on brain/hand/leg interaction without considering that the person is already half dead.

P.S. I love colourful language of rmcnew:

I think instead of trying to mental masturbate myself away from the point, as that statement seems to infer is happening....

[Polly_G]

I have a supervisory relationship with an INFj. In some ways we are so compatible but the supervisory relationship that keeps popping up has hindered us from developing a healthy intimiate relationship. We keep trying, but we keep failing.

He is a really good guy but his efforts to help me actually make me angry and hurts my confidence. It feels like I'm being lectured all the time and I hate it. He is aware of it, we talk about it often, but to curb his natural tendancy to supervise me seems almost impossible. (and this from an ENTp!!). The supervision relationship actually feels controlling to me and I dislike being controlled so much that it doesn't matter what other wonderful qualities a person has.

When we are together, it feels more like we are exposing each others weak spots constantly so it always feels like there is something wrong with both of us.

[Olga]

If you say to the person that his belly is too big and his face is too chabby it might not help him/her to be a better person at the end. Mind and perception can be influenced especially of young people who may start to stereotype people by attaching to a person a tag like " ISFJ - holden caulfield". Can you say that knowing socionincs does not bias those who is for example looking for the partner. How far can we rely on socionics? If you get a prescription of any medicine you have right to know of it's side effects - does socionic mention any side effects otr it can be considered perfectly safe and reliable and works for all?

[implied]

[Polly_G]

I think finding a dual would be nice but there all kinds of factors that I find attractive that my dual may or may not have that aren't dependent on type.

I think gender has an impact here as well. As females or males we have certain stereotypes as to what we are looking for in mates. My parents have never split and they are not duals. But there are a lot of things about each other they do respect and sometimes, couples just fight and it depends on their maturity to work through their fights.

There are some types I just can't see there being an attraction to because the personalities are just so different. Even with the INFj, years from now we might finally stop the vicious supervision cycle but how much work do you have to go through to reach that point.

I am single and personality makes me more aware of me and what will work for me and what will work against me. Its also made more aware of the qualities that personalities possess. I do believe we all have a core personality but our behavior is what usually makes things work/not work in a relationship and destructive behavior can be controlled regardless of type.

I would not date someone just because they were my dual just as I wouldn't turn someone away because they weren't my dual. However, it gives me a little window into what I might expect ...and I stress MIGHT.

[tcaudilllg]

I understand that trust, distrust and indifference or may be some other factors and psychodynamics can affect the relationship and make the presictive power of interaction to be useless. But I have not seen it stated clearly by socionics theory and why? If these factors are so important why not to emphasize them? Why to create and elaborate on something with the ingorence to the other factors which are so closely related to the subject of discussion? Why not to say something like that:
realtionships between ISFJ and INTJ are called superego and dont work because of this..... or they may perfectly work if this......!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I guess everybody will think then that the theory must be crap or would not take it serious. So far if your relationship fit to the predictions - then it is fine and if not - bad luck, nobody makes any attempt to understand or explain it. Again we lack on this site real life exapmles and analysis of real life realtionships or they burried somewere in the topics. Socionic has a power to influence people's perception of themselves and the other's but nobody really cares about the consequences of this impact (positive or negative). I find socionics highly prescriptive and biased as regards to intertype relationships. As if we are trying to understand how the brain works, what part of the brain moves a hand or a leg, elaborating on brain/hand/leg interaction without considering that the person is already half dead.

P.S. I love colourful language of rmcnew:

I think instead of trying to mental masturbate myself away from the point, as that statement seems to infer is happening....

Correct... but if you try putting those pieces together by yourself, you'll find a picture that is at once majestic and very, very frightening. You begin to perceive that the dominance of trust, distrust, and indifference divides the world into three parts, very much like in the biblical Revelation of John. Indeed, seeing the world in that lense reveals the archetype of the Revelation itself: the struggle for dominance of one of the three sides over the other two. This same struggle plays itself out in every story ever told by man, if you pay attention.

What professional end is there to completing the theory? Indeed, the consequences of the theory overthrow the system that spawned it.

[Angel von Himmel]

P.S. I love colourful language of rmcnew:

I think instead of trying to mental masturbate myself away from the point, as that statement seems to infer is happening....

Seriously ... I think that people over-complicate matters; if everyone really understood what the EGO, ID, Super-ID, and Super-EGO was about and the perceptions people form in result of them, we wouldn't be making these silly threads about how socionics is defficent and does not explain this and that or blah blah blah when in reality is that it does, just that we do not realize where socionics is coming from and how the theory is pieced together. That is basically the problem I have with this whole thread and what is being asked or questioned.

[Rocky]

You think socionics defines everything?

How so, if you don't even know your type? Faith?

[Angel von Himmel]

You think socionics defines everything?

How so, if you don't even know your type? Faith?

If you want to make this personal, we could go take this out into a hallway or something or otherwise stay on topic.

[Angel von Himmel]

But to seriously answer the question, I think people are failing to see that there are observable deductions between the Ego, Id, Super-EGO, and Super-ID and it frustrates me that people totally miss the point. If those deductions never existed, then I seriously doubt that Freud, Jung, Mead, Erickson, Augusta and the other founders of socionics would have stuck to the theory or bothered to develope it further.

[Rocky]

But to seriously answer the question, I think people are failing to see that there are observable deductions between the Ego, Id, Super-EGO, and Super-ID and it frustrates me that people totally miss the point. If those deductions never existed, then I seriously doubt that Freud, Jung, Mead, Erickson, Augusta and the other founders of socionics would have stuck to the theory or bothered to develope it further.

See, you did answer my question: faith.

That's all I was asking.

[Angel von Himmel]

But to seriously answer the question, I think people are failing to see that there are observable deductions between the Ego, Id, Super-EGO, and Super-ID and it frustrates me that people totally miss the point. If those deductions never existed, then I seriously doubt that Freud, Jung, Mead, Erickson, Augusta and the other founders of socionics would have stuck to the theory or bothered to develope it further.

See, you did answer my question: faith.

That's all I was asking.

I already know I am intuitive, but I do not see that as justification to blow off what I said. I was actually implying that the deductions are concrete and observable, and if I have seen them myself and with my own eyes that is not theory, it is science and therefore not a matter of faith.

[Rocky]

Only if it's provable 100% that everyone's type is what you claim to be, which is impossible. Otherwise, it's just a self-serving proficy in which you label someone's type off of some small amount of observable behaviour based on your understanding of the type, and then justify that person's behaviour by having that type.

[Angel von Himmel]

Only if it's provable 100% that everyone's type is what you claim to be, which is impossible. Otherwise, it's just a self-serving proficy in which you label someone's type off of some small amount of observable behaviour based on your understanding of the type, and then justify that person's behaviour by having that type.

That is called reading inbetween the lines ... it is looking at what you want to see as opposed to what is there, which is remarkedly diffrent compared to seeing a contrast between what others see and what a single person sees.

[Rocky]

Yes, I'm sorry for being so rude while pointing out the most basic criticism against any typology. That wasn't even personal or at you, just at the entire idea of having a theoretical system explain everything. It's all circular logic. Sorry. "Ego this... Te that... Fe Fi Fo Fum..."


Have a tissue,



See, now that is what being rude is. Not pointing out the absence of logical justification or empirical proof in a branch of psychology.

[Angel von Himmel]

Yes, I'm sorry for being so rude while pointing out the most basic criticism against any typology. That wasn't even personal or at you, just at the entire idea of having a theoretical system explain everything. It's all circular logic. Sorry. "Ego this... Te that... Fe Fi Fo Fum..."

See, now that is what being rude is. Not pointing out the absence of logical justification or empirical proof in a branch of psychology.

Essentially my disagreement had to do with saying that everything about the intertype relationships were not observable and scientific, while many of them are observable and scientific. On the other hand, if you can not observe it, then it is yet theory. There is a diffrence between someone sitting in some office somewhere and making abstractions about what could be as opposed to trying to get physical results from it.

Though, I would agree that there are possibly some things about the socionics model that still contains some abstract elements that may or may not be observable. I suspect that was the issue with Olga questioning some things about the Super-EGO intertype relationship at the start of this thread, and I could both agree and disagree on that basis. But I do not agree that Conflict partners and Super-EGO partners can not get along; they can, but they stress each other out and get frustrated with oneanother in the process of each doing things the way they do them. Some people can manage and actually like dealing with that sort of stress in a relationship, I suppose.

[Rocky]

And alls I'm sayin' is that it's hardly scientific. Why? Because how do you define a type! You could always make up or alter people's types to fit into one of your inter-type theories. Because you can't prove a type to begin with, you can't have 'scientific' studies or verifications. If you could, someone would have won the Noble Prize already. At this point it can only be considered experimental psychology.

[Angel von Himmel]

And alls I'm sayin' is that it's hardly scientific. Why? Because how do you define a type! You could always make up or alter people's types to fit into one of your inter-type theories. Because you can't prove a type to begin with, you can't have 'scientific' studies or verifications. If you could, someone would have won the Noble Prize already. At this point it can only be considered experimental psychology.

This is where I disagree again ... I think that for the most part diffrences exist between people that can obviously be differentiated into types, but the main problem is in organization of those diffrences and that is what can not be proven, especially if two similar comnpetiting theories conflict with each other by using similar terminology with various differing definitions [MBTI vs Socionics]. Do you expect perfection? I hate to dissapoint anyone, but not only is that not possible it is why people are frustrated with typology. Lack of perfection does not make something unscientific; unless of course you want to believe that matter is non-existant on account of being imperfect, but that is a whole other can of worms. Only a theory can make something perfect anyhow ...

[Rocky]

Good, it's all well and scientific... everyone has one of 16 types.

http://nobelprize.org/

E-mail them and you'll be famous.

[Angel von Himmel]

Good, it's all well and scientific... everyone has one of 16 types.

http://nobelprize.org/

E-mail them and you'll be famous.

Why? Sarcasm aside, I said nothing new and origional. I just know that there is a diffrence between a piece of matter and its ideal form. Typology is an ideal form, people are not.

For example, actual circles and squares do not exist in reality, but river smoothed rocks and paper boxes do and yet they are anything but perfect.

[Rocky]

That's what I was saying. Then why are you fighting for socionics models and theories?

[Angel von Himmel]

That's what I was saying. Then why are you fighting for socionics models and theories?

Because you can not have science and discovery without theory, and I think people who stick to traditional logic without considering the possibility of something deeper and more meaningful are bigots. Yet, some aspects of socionics theory have passed into the scientific realm and are no longer theoretical.

[Angel von Himmel]

And I probably should mention that another reason I fight for socionics theory is because I heavily relate to the "socionic model of the psyche," and it fits very well the way I choose to analyze people and things. I also think people who try to tool the theory over with non-sensical crap are on crack; some of those people post on this forum.

[Angel von Himmel]

And I forgot to mention, what would life be like without circles and squares? We'd be left with some pretty crappy and illogical shapes.

[Creepy-]

And I forgot to mention, what would life be like without circles and squares? We'd be left with some pretty crappy and illogical shapes.

Like the tetris block that represents Ethics?

*hides*

But I also relate very strongly to the structure Model A suggests. It fits. There are contradictions and things that don't make a great deal of sense sometimes, but people don't tend to be all that congruous anyway.

[Creepy-]

Also, as far as science goes, you get to a point where all you can say is "close enough". Infinite combinations of variables to test hypothesis against, etc. etc. etc. The last time this issue was raised I went on a 30 minute rant, but I will spare you all.