Originally Posted by
aixelsyd
Not a lot. She does suggest there exist dopplegangers of sociotypes and she is apparently of the belief that identical twins usually share the same sociotype, to make a point that there is a link to physiology and type. But she doesn't over-state this and she may have a point, but she focuses primarily on the psychological processes and behavior of each type. She does, however, give a general physical description of each type for when introducing a type and then giving a profile that goes into each information element pertaining to the type and how it is fit into the model. The physical descriptions are not, as to be expected, universal, but they are not entirely incorrect, either, as physical traits I have observed (same, to an extent, with Gulenko, whose ideas she obviously based these physical descriptions off of), but not, again, as something which is always evident and shouldn't be the point of focus or to be used as a cheap substitute to understanding a person's type based on the elements demonstrated by their pattern of thought, behavior, and so forth which have more consistent links to type.
In other words, she reveals that she believes physiology and type have a link, but she does not base her research and understanding of Socionics or method of typing on physiology or VI and would probably object to the idea of using VI and other physiology methods as being made a central practice and method (because many people would properly label such practices as pertaining to pseudo-science, eliminating any credibility Socionics has).