Thank you Diana for saying what I was thinking. Kristiina has just illustrated what I, personally, object to about the state of personality theory (and this includes the likes of MBTI as well as Socionics). Like religion, it so easily becomes dogma that somehow usurps the position of common sense.

Quote Originally Posted by gilligan87
My problem with socionics is that it isn't tied to anything. It doesn't predict ANYTHING if not behavior. I think it's been reduced, in our case, to VI and some very, very specific and, IMO, minor details about a person's personality that, in reality, have a minimal effect on how they interact with people. What exactly IS it that we are predicting if it's not sets of behavioral characteristics? It seems to be that the actual behaviors that are, indeed, connected to type are so narrow in their spectrum that there is little, if any, predictive power in Socionics any more. So what ARE we measuring?
I don't see what you are objecting to. I wasn't even aware Socionists made pretenses about being able to have some dubious "predictive power." It would be risible if that were the case.

Socionics isn't a science. It is about as scientific as any sociological theory, which is to say... not very. At the most benign level, it's a parlor game. At best, it can help explain behavior, thought-processes, and to a certain extent, emotion, but not predict it. It can explain why certain people will be attracted to certain types of interaction and stimulation (which thus influences their choice of occupation, friends, lovers, what have you), but can never predict it. Truly great people will defy the explanation of this theory... not to mention truly neurotic people. (Although, genius and insanity are kin, according to emo kids.)

I would take more issue at people taking Socionics to the extreme and relegating individuals (infinitely variable and unique) to specified and limiting "talents" the like of which puts the Hindu caste system to blushing shame.