Quote Originally Posted by MysticSonic
"Err, the point of the argument wasn't really about usefulness/uselessness of the definition. It was about correct/incorrect. Specifically, the gist of Rick's argument is that we should consider assertions with the definitions of the system and only those alone, despite the history of the definition and the system. I was arguing that his position is correct and my argument was explaining why his position is correct, and I had to define validity in such a way to make my position clear."

Yeah, but we really shouldn't be doing that with Socionics. That's a bit dangerous, don't you think?
Whether that is dangerous really depends on what Socionicists want to do with Socionics. This view itself is perfectly valid and, in my opinion, the problem only arises when this view is considered sufficient (i.e. well-definedness and consequently, logical correctness, are enough and empirical relevance is unimportant and can be sacrificed). I don't know where most Socionicists stand on this matter (whether they are Philosophers or Scientists).

Honestly, I think we are digressing too much. I don't think this thread was arguing in favor of diverging from reality in favor of logical correctness, but just diverging from MBTI/Jung in favor well-definedness.