Quote Originally Posted by hkkmr View Post

The fact that you are ruling out a basic fundamental dichotomy like Process/Result shows that your actual knowledge of Socionics theory is really weak, Process/Result is essentially the basis for the rings of social progress, which seems to be things that you have zero knowledge about.

Before you start throwing your weight around, trying to "canonize" things, realize that you actually don't know that much and that for every right thing you do you're making a number of wrong decisions.
Why do you believe Process/Result or even Social Progress to be basic or fundamental to Socionics? Although Social Progress has the Process/Result or Left/Right dichotomy at its centre, Aushra's and Gulenko's ideas on Social Progress are not only poorly explained but their connection to Model A lacks demonstration. In fact, the only way we can show how Leading Ie and Creative Li (ILE) can be more like Leading Se and Creative Ei (SEE) than Leading Ie and Creative Ei (IEE) or Leading Se and Creative Li (SLE) is if we were to resort to plus and minus IM elements, something most Socionists including myself consider to be logically superfluous.

One might then argue that without the Process/Result dichotomy being a necessary result of Model A, we can end up with contradictions. If we were to accept both Model A and Process/Result as canon without one being entailed by the other, a clear ILE type in terms of Model A who happens to write in a concrete --> abstract, 'Result' manner would present a major flaw to Socionics.

I would also argue that the ideas of Social Progress are superfluous to a more Model A-centric account of the relationships of Benefit and Supervision where the feelings of inadequacy arise in the former case from the matching of the Beneficiary's Suggestive with the Benefactor's Creative and the Benefactor's Suggestive with the Beneficiary's Vulnerable and in the latter case, from the matching of the Supervisor's Leading with the Supervisee's Vulnerable and the matching of the Supervisee's Leading with the Supervisor's Creative.

In short, because I find it reasonable to believe all parts of the canon should be demonstrable from Model A, I would not consider Social Progress or the dichotomies crucial to it (but not crucial to Model A) to be canon but requiring empirical backing and better explanation before they are canonised. I also find that this demonstrates the strength of my knowledge of Socionics and not any weakness.

Would you be willing to voice which wrong decisions are being made?