Originally Posted by
strrrng
Actually, you're right, in a way. This is one of the major problems with peoples' misunderstandings of socionics today. They assume the map is the territory (i.e. "classical socionics") and fail to simply observe the functions and whatnot in their actual form, instead relying on overly-simplistic models that detract from substantial experience.
Although, we still do need a map. It is just simply a matter of exploring the territory, drawing up a rough estimate, and going from there. The map should be continually refined, obviously.
But even if the map isn't the territory, does that mean that the map isn't valid -- at least in regards to the portion that it supposedly covers? Why should people ignore socionics simply because it has yet to summate the entire terrain? That's why we have multiple psychological theories, which hopefully intertwine with each other on more fundamental levels, and which can be cross-referenced to give a multi-dimensional, consummate map of the territory.