spare me the logical calculus next time.
i take issue not with 7 but rather with proposition 3.
Do you REALLY think Socionics is entirely subjective? You don't think people actually have methods of taking in information that more or less correlate to sets of motivations? If not, why the hell are you wasting your time here?
you misunderstand what i mean when i say that socionics is subjective. personally, i have seen enough evidence that socionics exists in accordance with the classical sense.
what i'm getting at is not that socionics has multiple different valid interpretations, but rather that reality itself has infinitely many different valid interpretations. there is absolutely no way to logically distinguish the veracity of one from the other because they are subjective perceptions that don't mean anything.
some people might subscribe to the idea that the sky is green. in this they would be wrong only in a practical sense, but not in any kind of definite capacity.
yes, these people are stupid and they're wrong about socionics. but you can't go from there to officially deeming them enemies of the state, because it's not objective to do so. in accordance with political correctness, if you dismiss the legitimacy of their arguments not in an informal but in an official capacity, then you've already lost.