Those "hard data" are only "hard" if you take for granted that the typings are correct.Originally Posted by Jonathan
I work with real "hard data", and I find highly questionable the notion that any data stemming from human psychology as per the subjects' self-perception can really be called "hard".
That is where I find Socionics more realistic, since, at least the way I have perceived it so far, its proponents tend to realize that typing someone remains a "soft" thing.
The descriptions of the functions are essential to Socionics in order to explain the intertype relationships. They also provide another dimension to understanding the types with such concepts as quadras and the PoLR, which are (as far as I know) fully absent in MBTI.Originally Posted by Phaedrus
Maybe I have misunderstood you but it seems to me that your main reason to want to almost "merge" MBTI and Socionics is because one finds useful stuff on some types in some MBTI profiles that Socionics' have "missed". Even if true, does that apply to other types besides INTj and INTp, the ones you have focused most on?