
Originally Posted by
MensSuperMateriam
I think maybe you're still not understanding my position. The NT club is not perfect (as any grouping); it cannot (and should not) be considered as determinat when gauging the potential position that its members will manifest. But it's definitely not "weak", nor using it is just an idea that I've just pulled out of my ass (the same idiom you've used several times).
Clubs are indeed part of Socionics theory, and they're as relevant as alternative classifications like quadras. Just their implications are different. The latter ones classifies types according to valued/devalued function which is connected with intertype relations. Clubs group types according to strong/weak functions, because strength plays a big role in the goals, purposes, pofessional areas, etc, that types are naturally inclined.
NFs as humanitarians, for example, is not just a superficial label, it has an argumentation supporting it. Of course it does not imply that necessarily all NFs will choose this path in their lives. An NT can focus in people & ethical questions; an NF can be a scientist, etc. But as usual, statistically speaking, it is relevant and works in this way. The same way not all LIIs will have typical LII "ideology", goals, or will agree with each other. But there's always a trend, a pattern.
Sharing the internal process does not determine the result, but it makes it easier to end in a particular point (or set of points) than in others. Counterexamples does not disprove statistical trends, unless their population size is as large as the opposite.
I insist that this is also part of the theory. Technically I'm not making a point, as I'm simply using what it's already available.