
Originally Posted by
Transigent
Well, you can't look at Socionics too closely, it seems to break down.
When descriptions of types, functions, and relationships are so vague, you can pretty much make anything fit.
There are some things that are obvious, but...for this to be a true theory, most of the things should be obvious. There should be more agreement on things, and there should be more information.
I used to think that there wasn't information about socionics in english because it hadn't been translated yet. Turns out, there really isn't much there to begin with.
Like, it is a cool thing in general, but if you want to get serious about it and look into biology, I would just throw socionics out altogether. It is pretty much an interaction shorthand.
Don't be like the dumbasses roaming around connecting all the stupid personality theorys. Keep each theory in its bounds. You can't apply one thing to something else that it isn't applicable too.