To start some good socionics discusion going again, I'd like to talk about the basics again, the models. First, I think that we can all agree that models aren't perfect, nor can they ever be. Some basic things like I've learned about models (in the general sense) are that,
Models are attempts to explain how nature operates on the microscopic level based on experiences in the macroscopic world.
--A model does not equal reality.
--Models are oversimplifications, and are therefore often wrong.
--Models become more complicated as they age.
--We must understand the underlying assumptions in a model so that we don’t misuse it.
I'd also like to say that you can argue for a certain model from oppossing view points and still shed some truth on it.
My point is to come up with better, more understandable models. Also, to point out some diffrences between MBTI/socionics, and how you can validate either one depending on the perception of the functions, and why it's not so clear-cut as "I'm right, you're not".
FYI, this is following some more devulging into functions on the brain, as well as thinking people in the types (as well as myself).
I'm sorry that it seems like I am almost leaving you hanging here, but I don't have much time time, and after I have collected my thoughts I'll come back later tonight ad desribe this in detail. I'll also give my imput on how I am starting to see the models. Until then, you people can give input on what you like, and what you disagree with, either model.