What socionics is and what it is not

[Absurd]

I have no idea what you just wrote, ambi

You're going to find exact same reasoning in quite a few people on here but you're going to agree and comprehend what they wrote purely based on one switched/replaced letter in TIM.

That or I'm not absurd.

[ambivalent existence]

If you are implying that duality and the other intertype relations don't exist I strongly disagree.It is true that there is more to interpersonal relations than what socionics describes but what socionics describes is there. The main issue with socionics as I see it is not whether the observed phenomenon exists or not but the underlying model, the predictions that it makes and their verifiability.

I suppose you just misunderstood me because yes what I meant is exactly these issues with the underlying model. My whole first post talks about that... and a bit more. Really I see no disagreement here, just wording things differently.

[Gravolez]

You have to work on your analogies and wording.

[ambivalent existence]

You have to work on your analogies and wording.

Sorry, I've never been good with analogies -.-

[mu4]

For those with that goddam short attention span:

Socionics is:

- A non-scientific theory talking about weak correlations and not even useful at all as it says nothing new about people in practice.
- A collection of observations of people. You can read about stereotypes of people, behaviour, interactions, communication styles, nothing new at all.
- A religion.
- Etc.

Socionics isn't:

- A sound theory organizing the data on people.
- A revolution in society to improve the way people deal with each other blahblahblah.
- Etc.

Socionics is stochastic and not deterministic, it's a social science and it is more like set theory. The functions themselves are divergent expressions from the same root and best viewed as intersecting sets on a Venn diagrams.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venn_diagram
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_theory

There are many reasons socionics can't provide a deterministic model but imo, that's ok.

It's pretty unimportant what socionics is today imo, because ultimately, if people didn't think there was something to investigate, they wouldn't spend so much of their time here.

Also imo, socionics is not a religion, nobody believes in it until they type someone they want to sex their dual.

[FoxOnStilts]

nobody believes in it until they type someone they want to sex their dual.

QFT

[ambivalent existence]

Socionics is stochastic and not deterministic, it's a social science and it is more like set theory. The functions themselves are divergent expressions from the same root and best viewed as intersecting sets on a Venn diagrams.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venn_diagram
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_theory

There are many reasons socionics can't provide a deterministic model but imo, that's ok.

It's pretty unimportant what socionics is today imo, because ultimately, if people didn't think there was something to investigate, they wouldn't spend so much of their time here.

Also imo, socionics is not a religion, nobody believes in it until they type someone they want to sex their dual.

You put it very well, I think of the functions exactly like this. And that's part of the reason why I don't see it as a great theory either.

No not a religion but some people do seem to believe in it a bit too much. The duality thing is a good example of that.

But I've repeated myself enough times already. Nothing new to add to this.

[Slacker]

You have to just take it for what it is and not expect more from it than there is. There's something to it, but it's vague and imprecise. There's tons of subjectivity. There's no way to prove anything. It's not a science. But it's still interesting if you accept it for the vague, imprecise thing it is.

[redbaron]

wow. well maybe this forum should switch to astrology.

[Slacker]

lol. Well IMO, there is something to Socionics, but there isn't anything at all to astrology. But that is not a universal opinion, I don't think. I wouldn't have any interest in an astrology forum.

[anndelise]

wow. well maybe this forum should switch to astrology.

Just gotta take out the birthday related stuff and it could be a decent personality theory, particularly since it's been jungified. Include the houses, and one could go really into depth on learning about a person's personality in various aspects of their life.

[Trevor]

Among other things, Socionics has to do with social roles.

If you are wanting to determine your sociotype one of the things you can ask yourself is: what is my natural social role? Which social roles come easy to me? Which don't?

[ambivalent existence]

You have to just take it for what it is and not expect more from it than there is. There's something to it, but it's vague and imprecise. There's tons of subjectivity. There's no way to prove anything. It's not a science. But it's still interesting if you accept it for the vague, imprecise thing it is.

gotcha. Not as interesting for me anymore exactly because it is too vague and imprecise. Though it did make me look at myself, analyse myself a bit and that was not such a bad idea. Though I could have done that just fine without any typology either. With a lot fewer unnecessary assumptions.

wow. well maybe this forum should switch to astrology.

You know, when I first got into this typology thingie, I showed it to an old friend of mine and he instantly said oh this is like astrology.

lol. Well IMO, there is something to Socionics, but there isn't anything at all to astrology. But that is not a universal opinion, I don't think. I wouldn't have any interest in an astrology forum.

The problem with astrology is that it tries to link types to birth dates and *some* people dealing with it try to make detailed life predictions for each week of your life. But otherwise it's a typology system alright.

[ambivalent existence]

Among other things, Socionics has to do with social roles.

If you are wanting to determine your sociotype one of the things you can ask yourself is: what is my natural social role? Which social roles come easy to me? Which don't?

Seriously, I'm pretty sure the correlation is pretty weak there. It is determined by a load more than "socionics factors". It is determined by 1) your inborn and previously learned skills 2) your environment (your immediate world and people).

[redbaron]

The problem with astrology is that it tries to link types to birth dates and *some* people dealing with it try to make detailed life predictions for each week of your life. But otherwise it's a typology system alright.

not just birth dates but place and time and planet locations. so it's a lot more complex than some people think. then there are the movements through time (of the planets) and how they affect various people.... I actually think there might be something to it. I know, now I'm crazy.

[mu4]

You put it very well, I think of the functions exactly like this. And that's part of the reason why I don't see it as a great theory either.

No not a religion but some people do seem to believe in it a bit too much. The duality thing is a good example of that.

But I've repeated myself enough times already. Nothing new to add to this.

On the relative scale of theories, it's in the top .001% percentile. Just pulling a number out of a hat here, and a opinion. I would say you would be hard pressed to improve on Socionic theory without making a major advancement which would likely make a major change in mainstream thought. It could dethrone MBTI, subvert MBTI or change organizational and psychiatric practices. What socionics needs imo is, in no specific order:

1. Statistical measurement tool with good predictive ability(imperfect but a major improvement still) More like predicting the weather than observing a cell. (empirical work)
2. Clarification in the inductions within socionics which make sense, but however are unsubstantiated as of right now. (analysis)
3. Creating the neccessary framework by which socionics can be philosophically assessed and interpreted by other branches of science/philosophy/psychology. (positivism)
4. Falsify socionics, criticism(skeptical)

It matters very little which viewpoint people take to this study, but imo it's all worthwhile.

[ashlesha]

differences between socionics and astrology:

1. with socionics you get to pick your own type and it can be challenged by others.
2. astrology has more well-defined and consistent characteristics for each type.
3. astrology is older, more researched, and more popular.
4. socionics has a basis in jung, astrology has a basis in human attemps at understanding going back thousands of years.

[mu4]

differences between socionics and astrology:

1. with socionics you get to pick your own type and it can be challenged by others.
2. astrology has more well-defined and consistent characteristics for each type.
3. astrology is older, more researched, and more popular.
4. socionics has a basis in jung, astrology has a basis in human attemps at understanding going back thousands of years.

Yet, you're still here, waiting for your dual... #foreverskeptical

Astrology is unexaminable and unrefutable and one of the components of science is that it is refutable.

“It is certainly not the least charm of a theory that it is refutable”

I would say socionics is more refutable and thus more charming in a scientific and theoretical sense.

Astrology is more or less a religion and kinda of why it doesn't go away, once you refute a scientific misunderstanding, it's gone generally never to be discussed except by cranks. The world is not the center of the universe, the earth is not flat but people will believe in god and in the magic of stars. Socionics is kinda of inbetween that, people want to fall in love, people want to find their soul mate, people want to have magic in their lives, but also people want to know how others work and understand others despite their disagreements with others and to be able to accept others despite those disagreements. It fulfills both an analytical and erotic desire so many different people will get hooked by it.

[tcaudilllg]

Some things can deal with trait theory. Others can't. Those brains criticize trait theory.

"Ambivalent existence" -- that says a lot. You're a swing voter, aren't you? Yeah I can open your inner world like a tin can. You are the tenth person, I believe, to engage in such a spiel on these forums. It happens like once every six months.

You haven't seen the data. Have you ever read a socionics journal? Have you read the abstracts? They do research. They do studies. They do it in MBTI as well. Socionics doesn't contravene Big 5 -- it fits directly inside of it.

Tired of seeing idiots with preconceived notions come on here and slam something they know nothing about, despite this community's effort to make educational materials available. Learn the science, or shut up.

[anndelise]

Off topic: regarding modifying astrology into a typing system

Typing via astrology's elements, qualities, and houses could be quite a complex system (again, as long as you remove the time/location stuff).
There would be 12 ways of expressing each of 12 areas of life. (I wouldn't know the appropriate math, but that would be at least 144 possible types for a person, right?)

For example,
in the areas of possessions,

one person might express cardinal air (obtains/creates possessions based on intellectual or rational reasons)
vs another person who might express fixed water (keeps things that hold emotional value to them);

though both people might generally express mutable fire, with quickly changing passions.

Of course, with this method, you're not particularly trying to delve into how a person processes information like socionics claims to.

[anndelise]

I would say socionics is more refutable and thus more charming in a scientific and theoretical sense.

If by refutable you mean arguable, then yes.
But if by refutable you mean proveable, then no, not as it is written.
It doesn't even provide enough objective and explicit definitions to make a really good classification system.

[marooned]

Socionics is charming.

[tcaudilllg]

Off topic: regarding modifying astrology into a typing system

Typing via astrology's elements, qualities, and houses could be quite a complex system (again, as long as you remove the time/location stuff).
There would be 12 ways of expressing each of 12 areas of life. (I wouldn't know the appropriate math, but that would be at least 144 possible types for a person, right?)

For example,
in the areas of possessions,

one person might express cardinal air (obtains/creates possessions based on intellectual or rational reasons)
vs another person who might express fixed water (keeps things that hold emotional value to them);

though both people might generally express mutable fire, with quickly changing passions.

Of course, with this method, you're not particularly trying to delve into how a person processes information like socionics claims to.

Sometimes, it's best to just break with the past. Any system not predicated on dialectics is not worth entertaining.

[mu4]

If by refutable you mean arguable, then yes.
But if by refutable you mean proveable, then no, not as it is written.
It doesn't even provide enough objective and explicit definitions to make a really good classification system.

Mmmm, I think socionics is refutable, it's basis is information processing, information preference and information metabolism. You can absolutely refute those concepts which form the basis of socionic theory. There are areas of socionics which do not have this exposure to being refuted, at least from a scientific point of view but it would be good to make the formulation of those areas in a way that it could be refutable.

What you call objective/explicit definitions are actually not definitions but a normative prediction. You want people to define type/function objectively and that's actually wrong to even attempt, because there will be variation within those predictions. To even attempt to find objective and immutable definitions from the predictions of socionic model is to basically say, there's only these 16 types of people and no other variety. As we can plainly see this is absolutely not the case. The categorizations and predictions socionics make is in how information processing, metabolism and preference differentiates human being into 16 sets of individuals who interact in a predictable fashion. To think of the definitions as the system is to force every individual into a box which is unhelpful to understanding the variation that exist in humanity. The theory of socionics will always be about the underlying process by which socio-type emerges and not about amorphous normative descriptions of select individuals.

Anyways, given our past conversation history and sociotypes, I'm giving this conversation a 40% chance of rain, bring your umbrella...

[ambivalent existence]

not just birth dates but place and time and planet locations. so it's a lot more complex than some people think. then there are the movements through time (of the planets) and how they affect various people.... I actually think there might be something to it. I know, now I'm crazy.

Maybe. Maybe not. My opinion ends there.

PS: I didn't mean this about you being "crazy" (you aren't), but about "might be something to it".

[mu4]

not just birth dates but place and time and planet locations. so it's a lot more complex than some people think. then there are the movements through time (of the planets) and how they affect various people.... I actually think there might be something to it. I know, now I'm crazy.

I think you want some magic!

[ashlesha]

i have yet to be convinced socionics is refutable and i seriously doubt it.

[ambivalent existence]

On the relative scale of theories, it's in the top .001% percentile. Just pulling a number out of a hat here, and a opinion. I would say you would be hard pressed to improve on Socionic theory without making a major advancement which would likely make a major change in mainstream thought. It could dethrone MBTI, subvert MBTI or change organizational and psychiatric practices. What socionics needs imo is, in no specific order:

1. Statistical measurement tool with good predictive ability(imperfect but a major improvement still) More like predicting the weather than observing a cell. (empirical work)
2. Clarification in the inductions within socionics which make sense, but however are unsubstantiated as of right now. (analysis)
3. Creating the neccessary framework by which socionics can be philosophically assessed and interpreted by other branches of science/philosophy/psychology. (positivism)
4. Falsify socionics, criticism(skeptical)

It matters very little which viewpoint people take to this study, but imo it's all worthwhile.

Top 0.001%? I disagree, but I don't have the time to argue this and I see no point either.

Also, MBTI is not really uh... not really some big thing to be subverted. But yes sure I'm sure there will be a paradigm change in psychology one day. I just don't think it will be coming from a social science. Not excluding the possibility that it can contribute to it though.

Btw, I get "lost" at this point: "can be philosophically assessed and interpreted by". I'd prefer working on falsifying right away.

Astrology is unexaminable and unrefutable and one of the components of science is that it is refutable.

I would say socionics is more refutable and thus more charming in a scientific and theoretical sense.

Astrology is more or less a religion and kinda of why it doesn't go away, once you refute a scientific misunderstanding, it's gone generally never to be discussed except by cranks. The world is not the center of the universe, the earth is not flat but people will believe in god and in the magic of stars. Socionics is kinda of inbetween that, people want to fall in love, people want to find their soul mate, people want to have magic in their lives, but also people want to know how others work and understand others despite their disagreements with others and to be able to accept others despite those disagreements. It fulfills both an analytical and erotic desire so many different people will get hooked by it.

I don't think there is such a thing as "more" refutable. It is either refutable or not. I'm sorry if I sound very black and white now.

I like your analogy between astrology and socionics btw. However where I am pretty skeptical is that you can understand people via a scientific theory at this point. That understanding you talk about can only be based on our built-in instincts right now. Any other kind of understanding would be used for something else entirely.

Mmmm, I think socionics is refutable, it's basis is information processing, information preference and information metabolism. You can absolutely refute those concepts which form the basis of socionic theory. There are areas of socionics which do not have this exposure to being refuted, at least from a scientific point of view but it would be good to make the formulation of those areas in a way that it could be refutable.

What you call objective/explicit definitions are actually not definitions but a normative prediction. You want people to define type/function objectively and that's actually wrong to even attempt, because there will be variation within those predictions. To even attempt to find objective and immutable definitions from the predictions of socionic model is to basically say, there's only these 16 types of people and no other variety. As we can plainly see this is absolutely not the case. The categorizations and predictions socionics make is in how information processing, metabolism and preference differentiates human being into 16 sets of individuals who interact in a predictable fashion. To think of the definitions as the system is to force every individual into a box which is unhelpful to understanding the variation that exist in humanity. The theory of socionics will always be about the underlying process by which socio-type emerges and not about amorphous normative descriptions of select individuals.

Sure it's based on information processing theories, but normative predictions... are not refutable. Because they are just normative anyway. I never liked it though I do understand why in many psychology areas they think correlations at 30% are something to do further research into. This means just further research, not warranting some really cool-sounding theory to get stuck at.

Your last sentence is pretty good, yes it is about an underlying process which is fine. A big point I'm trying to convey is that this isn't really something that should be connected to the motivation of understanding people for real life issues.

[tcaudilllg]

i have yet to be convinced socionics is refutable and i seriously doubt it.

I agree, because you can't refute the All-is.

You know we really ought to go to the Christians with socionics. New frontiers in theology... "Jesus created information metabolism... Proverbs describes truths of info metabolism...." Big stuff.

[ambivalent existence]

Some things can deal with trait theory. Others can't. Those brains criticize trait theory.

"Ambivalent existence" -- that says a lot. You're a swing voter, aren't you? Yeah I can open your inner world like a tin can. You are the tenth person, I believe, to engage in such a spiel on these forums. It happens like once every six months.

You haven't seen the data. Have you ever read a socionics journal? Have you read the abstracts? They do research. They do studies. They do it in MBTI as well. Socionics doesn't contravene Big 5 -- it fits directly inside of it.

Tired of seeing idiots with preconceived notions come on here and slam something they know nothing about, despite this community's effort to make educational materials available. Learn the science, or shut up.

Right I can't really deal with trait theories I guess.

I'm not a swing voter, I don't ever vote for any party actually. Btw tidbit, I'm in europe and there is only one party here now that has had a chance to win any kind of elections for a while now. I still don't vote for it because I don't agree with their views.

Sorry, I will not waste my time on reading journals, I'm not really interested anymore. I did put some time and energy into this so I believe I still have the right to assert my opinion however.

[tcaudilllg]

Right I can't really deal with trait theories I guess.

I'm not a swing voter, I don't ever vote for any party actually. Btw tidbit, I'm in europe and there is only one party here now that has had a chance to win any kind of elections for a while now. I still don't vote for it because I don't agree with their views.

Sorry, I will not waste my time on reading journals, I'm not really interested anymore. I did put some time and energy into this so I believe I still have the right to assert my opinion however.

No, uninformed opinions have no value and it is your responsibility to avoid hawking them when they have been disproven. Anything less is a failure of character.

[ambivalent existence]

No, uninformed opinions have no value and it is your responsibility to avoid hawking them when they have been disproven. Anything less is a failure of character.

"Uninformed" is subjective. You have no way to determine exactly how much I read about socionics or how much time I spent observing things around me and checking against the theory.

Just because I disagree with you on something doesn't mean it's because I'm uninformed.

Enjoy judging characthers if you want.

[tcaudilllg]

Yes I do because I drew a different conclusion. Because my analysis on these matters is without error (I checked and rechecked), either you must have erred or you didn't read all the information. One of the two is true.

It is necessary to obliterate your credibility because you have lodged a public charge against the credibility of this system. You are not getting a pass.

I don't like the word "disagree". It doesn't work with me. Given a body of evidence, a conclusion is right, wrong, likely, or unlikely. Modern usage of the term "disagree" is little more than rhetorical device. Speak straight or leave.

[mu4]

Top 0.001%? I disagree, but I don't have the time to argue this and I see no point either.

Also, MBTI is not really uh... not really some big thing to be subverted. But yes sure I'm sure there will be a paradigm change in psychology one day. I just don't think it will be coming from a social science. Not excluding the possibility that it can contribute to it though.

Btw, I get "lost" at this point: "can be philosophically assessed and interpreted by". I'd prefer working on falsifying right away.

MBTI is pretty accepted in mainstream America, most young people will get a MBTI assessment for fun and giggles once in their life in the US. It's as mainstream as it gets imo as far as pop psychology. No matter how banal and stupid you think many of these pop psychologies are, often these studies and even astrology have more of an effect on people's decision making them some low level reductive science.

I don't think there is such a thing as "more" refutable. It is either refutable or not. I'm sorry if I sound very black and white now.

I like your analogy between astrology and socionics btw. However where I am pretty skeptical is that you can understand people via a scientific theory at this point. That understanding you talk about can only be based on our built-in instincts right now. Any other kind of understanding would be used for something else entirely.

I think we should be specific about what is refutable and not refutable, information metabolism, information processing, information preference are all refutable. It's ok to be black and white, but there needs to be specifics before we can discuss refutability vs non-refutability. There are other areas in socionics which are refutable and others which do not deserve to be refuted. People that try to refute a system as a whole, inevitably end up with a lack of clarity about socionics.

For example, if one definition or description of a function or a type is refuted, it is meaningless to the theory. It's like saying, hey 40% chance of rain and it didn't rain, the weathermen are never right. This of course is a easily refuted statement because well, occasionally and quite often the weathermen are right. Dealing with the weather and other complex phenomena such as people, we cannot view predictions and statements at the predictive level as refutable or non-refutable, as these are non-deterministic.

Sure it's based on information processing theories, but normative predictions... are not refutable. Because they are just normative anyway. I never liked it though I do understand why in many psychology areas they think correlations at 30% are something to do further research into. This means just further research, not warranting some really cool-sounding theory to get stuck at.

Of course not, which is why I'm not a socionist, that's just navel gazing. However, I do defend socionics because it is a pet theory of mine and I like how it interacts with other pet theories of mine.

Your last sentence is pretty good, yes it is about an underlying process which is fine. A big point I'm trying to convey is that this isn't really something that should be connected to the motivation of understanding people for real life issues.

This is a specialist thing, with one major prediction, that your information preference will lead to certain predictable relationship problems and benefits. To use it as a overarching theory of human understanding is fairly limiting. In fact I would say that socionics the theory and socionics observations has a huge middle area that is unknown. Socionics theory is relatively low level in the information processing/preference/metabolism part(well defined here and substantiated outside of socionics), and very high level when it comes to descriptions/intertype relations and functions(substantially observed here, Jung, MBTI, Temperament, Tao Te Jing). In the middle is a big void and nobody knows how one gets from a metabolism that process information to the functions, differentiated behavior, and ultimately intertype relations. The theory attempts to make a map of this middle it, but there is only place holders for things to investigate rather than anything directly observable.

[tcaudilllg]

HR reps swear by MBTI. In my personnel psychology course, it was the only test which escaped criticism because everyone in HR realizes it's legit.

[tcaudilllg]

MBTI is pretty accepted in mainstream America, most young people will get a MBTI assessment for fun and giggles once in their life in the US. It's as mainstream as it gets imo as far as pop psychology. No matter how banal and stupid you think many of these pop psychologies are, often these studies and even astrology have more of an effect on people's decision making them some low level reductive science.



I think we should be specific about what is refutable and not refutable, information metabolism, information processing, information preference are all refutable. It's ok to be black and white, but there needs to be specifics before we can discuss refutability vs non-refutability. There are other areas in socionics which are refutable and others which do not deserve to be refuted. People that try to refute a system as a whole, inevitably end up with a lack of clarity about socionics.

For example, if one definition or description of a function or a type is refuted, it is meaningless to the theory. It's like saying, hey 40% chance of rain and it didn't rain, the weathermen are never right. This of course is a easily refuted statement because well, occasionally and quite often the weathermen are right. Dealing with the weather and other complex phenomena such as people, we cannot view predictions and statements at the predictive level as refutable or non-refutable, as these are non-deterministic.



Of course not, which is why I'm not a socionist, that's just navel gazing. However, I do defend socionics because it is a pet theory of mine and I like how it interacts with other pet theories of mine.



This is a specialist thing, with one major prediction, that your information preference will lead to certain predictable relationship problems and benefits. To use it as a overarching theory of human understanding is fairly limiting. In fact I would say that socionics the theory and socionics observations has a huge middle area that is unknown. Socionics theory is relatively low level in the information processing/preference/metabolism part(well defined here and substantiated outside of socionics), and very high level when it comes to descriptions/intertype relations and functions(substantially observed here, Jung, MBTI, Temperament, Tao Te Jing). In the middle is a big void and nobody knows how one gets from a metabolism that process information to the functions, differentiated behavior, and ultimately intertype relations. The theory attempts to make a map of this middle it, but there is only place holders for things to investigate rather than anything directly observable.

I just figured that out, actually, but that doesn't count because I did it, right?

[redbaron]

I think you want some magic!

I think you're right.

[ambivalent existence]

Yes I do because I drew a different conclusion. Because my analysis on these matters is without error (I checked and rechecked), either you must have erred or you didn't read all the information. One of the two is true.

It is necessary to obliterate your credibility because you have lodged a public charge against the credibility of this system. You are not getting a pass.

I don't like the word "disagree". It doesn't work with me. Given a body of evidence, a conclusion is right, wrong, likely, or unlikely. Modern usage of the term "disagree" is little more than rhetorical device. Speak straight or leave.

I don't really care what you think. If you are this emotionally involved with your pet theory, fine, I don't mind.

[Absurd]

I can'r read any of your bull shite posts now.

[ambivalent existence]

MBTI is pretty accepted in mainstream America, most young people will get a MBTI assessment for fun and giggles once in their life in the US. It's as mainstream as it gets imo as far as pop psychology. No matter how banal and stupid you think many of these pop psychologies are, often these studies and even astrology have more of an effect on people's decision making them some low level reductive science.

ok, I'm not american, heh.

low level reductive sciences are not directly meant for application so that is fine.

I think we should be specific about what is refutable and not refutable, information metabolism, information processing, information preference are all refutable. It's ok to be black and white, but there needs to be specifics before we can discuss refutability vs non-refutability. There are other areas in socionics which are refutable and others which do not deserve to be refuted. People that try to refute a system as a whole, inevitably end up with a lack of clarity about socionics.

For example, if one definition or description of a function or a type is refuted, it is meaningless to the theory. It's like saying, hey 40% chance of rain and it didn't rain, the weathermen are never right. This of course is a easily refuted statement because well, occasionally and quite often the weathermen are right. Dealing with the weather and other complex phenomena such as people, we cannot view predictions and statements at the predictive level as refutable or non-refutable, as these are non-deterministic.

okay, I see what you mean

This is a specialist thing, with one major prediction, that your information preference will lead to certain predictable relationship problems and benefits. To use it as a overarching theory of human understanding is fairly limiting. In fact I would say that socionics the theory and socionics observations has a huge middle area that is unknown. Socionics theory is relatively low level in the information processing/preference/metabolism part(well defined here and substantiated outside of socionics), and very high level when it comes to descriptions/intertype relations and functions(substantially observed here, Jung, MBTI, Temperament, Tao Te Jing). In the middle is a big void and nobody knows how one gets from a metabolism that process information to the functions, differentiated behavior, and ultimately intertype relations. The theory attempts to make a map of this middle it, but there is only place holders for things to investigate rather than anything directly observable.

yeah, I think actually that's my issue, heh. like, I would be interested in this theory only if I could conduct research directly on the low level aspect of it. but even before that, I would want to see how the conceptualization is, and I'm not satisfied with that either.

that is because even here what is called low level aspect of socionics it is not quite low level at all from the viewpoint of cogpsy/cogsci/neuroscience/whatever. it is pretty high level viewed from down here.

so overall I guess we are viewing it from different places.