I want to say that i whole heartedly agree with this statement. It comes from a strictly analytical standpoint and makes perfect sense.Originally Posted by Pedro-The-Lion
I suppose my opinions on what i would like socionics to become sometimes like to overstep the micro so i can move on the the macro- the BIG PICTURE. That's just because i have a global view of what socionics should become.
This influences my opinions greatly
I just worry that the science might sort of eat itself alive. My reasons for feeling this are that A) There has not been an established correlation between type and environment. B) There is not a standard approach to testing. C) Sub-types manifest at a micro-level and are therefore prone to uncertainty elements.
When a tree is planted you know what type of tree it is. Will you be able to predict the exact patterns and directions that its branches develop? Perhaps IM type is like the "tree" and the "sub-types" are like the variations in the way in which the branches grow. Chaos elements such as changes in the environment (outside forces) can make sub-type theories useless if they are not done with care.
but i do absolutely agree with that quote. I am open minded here