I think so too, which is why I criticized him for it. It's not that the point he makes is wrong, it's that his actions are not scientific as he seems to be promoting but rather his actions are rooted in ethics and sentiment.
Socionics may be useless(subjective evaluation) to some on this forum, but it is often quite
meaningful still to these individuals.
Socionics because it is rooted in personality, identity, and social designation is in the same domain of questions that humans grip with using philosophy, psychology, religion, art.
The same questions, "Who am I? What is one's place in the world? How can one be happy." are muddle thru in these topics. Somes answers obscure while others reveal and it is hard to determine which answer in which study is right.
Socionics is not a science, and one should not pretend it has scientific validity, but it also isn't a cult, astrology or magic either. The explanatory mechanisms are in line with cognitive science (brain, information processing, information preference) and the descriptions are psychological (Jung). There is no secret knowledge known to just a few or special techniques hidden behind a onerous paywall or indoctrination. This is as open a study as exists operating in a voluntary community.
Science also cannot produce satisfactory answers for many of the questions man asks and even if it could in time,
human lives are short and we cannot wait.
I'm not going to go deeply into this because people have said this far better than I, I will leave some links.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm
I might have been a bit harsh on him out of frustration but you don't have to rely on only science to live your life, you also don't have to evaluate everything on the basis of some measure of useful/uselessness. It would be immeasurably more banal and stunted world without the subjective and inter-subjective facets of our world, sometimes beautiful and sometimes monstrous.