Let me start off by saying that I greatly admire and appreciate the work you put into furthering the development of Socionics hypotheses and theories. Your work enhances the quality of the community and suggests interesting potential avenues for practical application (e.g., achieving more accurate typings, identifying different aspects of intertype relations--to name a few). Please keep at it!
I also understand that it may be frustrating to come up with these ideas that seem promising and not have them acknowledged by the greater community. Personally, I find your hypotheses very interesting, but they are often so dense that I can barely sink my teeth into them. Call it weak , because it really isn't just laziness or stupidity.
To appeal to the broader community and make interpretation easier for those such as myself, I think there could be improvement in some of the ways that user hypotheses are presented. Please take this as my well-intentioned attempt at advice. I write peer-review articles for a living, so I'd like to think I know a little bit about presenting information.
- The first idea that comes to mind is primarily using a Wiki format. Frequently, when a new idea is presented, I find myself opening multiple tabs, cross-referencing texts, searching endlessly for related previous material, and losing my place as to what the hell I was even doing in the first place. If you provide links within your text, like a Wiki, this could make our jobs a lot easier.
- Secondly, I think you too often assume that people know what you're talking about, especially with your beginning premise, which is the most important! Take this quote, for instance, (sorry tcaud, your site is down for me so I can't do further interpretation and I'm really just using this as an example anyway):
- Thirdly, define all your concepts! I just had a discussion with labcoat, for instance, in which he defined "choice" (as related to diffuse functions) as something I never would have imagined (i.e., that choices do not matter and you don't take them seriously--as opposed to focus functions, in which there is a single correct answer).
- Provide examples, if possible, by using at least one of the 16 types to illustrate your hypothesis.
- And finally, please explain your rationale if it might not be apparent to other people. You might say, "This implies that," but to me, it can feel like that South Park episode:
WTF is in Phase 2?!
Ok, I'm done now.