"Err, the point of the argument wasn't really about usefulness/uselessness of the definition. It was about correct/incorrect. Specifically, the gist of Rick's argument is that we should consider assertions with the definitions of the system and only those alone, despite the history of the definition and the system. I was arguing that his position is correct and my argument was explaining why his position is correct, and I had to define validity in such a way to make my position clear."

Yeah, but we really shouldn't be doing that with Socionics. That's a bit dangerous, don't you think?

"If you want to argue the uselessness of this definition and argue that it important that the assertions are applicability to reality, and hence we should define it similarly, then you should have really participated in my thread about the empirical justification of Socionics. I would have loved to hear your comments, which, I think, would have been in support of the search for empirical justification of Socionics.""

I suppose I should have, and yes I would have been---and still am.