Originally Posted by
Karatos
The fundamentals of a system are fair game for criticism, and when the fundamentals are unsound, the foundation of the system has some problems. One fundamental aspect of Model A is that it lacks any account of how information processing changes. It fails to mention how vital IMs become mental, how mental functions become vital, or any other kind of transition. I know "vital" functions rise to consciousness in my mind. That said, Model A's not general enough to have reliable predictable worth, and since users here treat it like it has predictive worth in that they treat Model A like it can be used to reliably type people, nobody's beating a dead horse. Furthermore, the rules behind Model A are arbitrary in that they're simply mapped out through various dichotomies, creating a system of substantial complexity based on what amounts to circular reasoning. The more complex a hypothetical system is, the more parts it has, the more parts it has, the higher its likelihood of error is in testing and general accuracy. Contrast Model A with Big 5, a system consisting of 5 simple traits, none of which are contingent on each other, and you start to see why psychologists hold Big 5 in higher esteem than Socionics. Big 5 is less error prone and generally more accurate because its simplicity compensates for chaotic elements.