This one goes out to Nicky, Allie, JRiddy, dolphin, et al.
I hear over and over again the accusation of "adhering to a model," that somehow rejecting a model and "observing" the functions "objectively" is the way to go.
The people who make these claims are not practicing Socionics. Socionics specifically refers to the theory of information metabolism types as defined by Augusta in her cubic model and theory of intertype relationships. Anything that attempts to redefine this basic set of assumptions, or work outside, beyond, or in lieu of them, is no longer Socionics. That's as simple as it gets.
This begs the question: why are people who assert the superiority of these methods still posting at a Socionics site? And why do they derive the name of their home forum from the word "Socionics?" What's the problem here? Are you not rebellious enough to just go out and give it your own name, start your own personality theory? Do you feel the need to cling to the name for some sense of security, credibility, or whatever? Get your own name! I should think that you'd prefer to, given your penchant for "rebellion" and "freedom of thought" and all of those other nice sounding chant-starters.
In short, stop hiding behind the guise of crudely smushing Jungian typology and Socionics together as though it forms some perception of reality that is still able to be coherently interpreted alongside Socionics, and have the balls to call it your own theory.