Quote Originally Posted by Karatos View Post
Socionics was developed by psychologists. Augustina was a psychologist, Kepinski had a background in psychology, and Jung was essentially a psychologist. Gannushkin, Leonhard, and Lichko all had backgrounds in psychology as well.

It's inconsistent of you to claim that modern research developed by psychologists should be taken with a grain of salt, while claiming the dated research done by these people who were also psychologists should practically amount to the gospel truth. Your viewpoint on the matter amounts to a rigid kind of fundamentalism that disregards empirical evidence and substantiated explanations for cognition and behavior. Even your definitions for functions amount to some of the most crude, reductionist, simple, and inaccurate shit I've ever seen uttered in typology circles. Functioning is not "Te." Purpose is not "Ni." That's fucking ludicrous.
I never said Jung or Augusta should be taken as gospel truth, and in fact I've directly critiqued both Jung and Augusta on my website and blog, not to mention presented an interpretation of socionics that goes beyond what they imagined. The others you mentioned aren't directly relevant to my research. I am familiar with and to some extent find value in other psychological research - taking it with a grain of salt means just that. The difference with socionics is that I can (and have) directly verified it through my own research and personal experience. If you disagree with my conclusions (which are elaborated on my website) then there's not much more else to say. However, your knowledge of socionics seems limited at best so I don't take these kinds of objections very seriously.