Originally Posted by
FarDraft
How do we claim a theory to be objective? According to the Cambridge dictionary, something that is objective is "based on real facts and not influenced by personal beliefs or feelings". Then the question becomes, what is a fact? Consulting the same dictionary once again, we have that a fact is something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information. Proof of a statement can come from two places: a logical argument built upon firm axioms or empirical, reproducible testing that controls for alternative possibilities. Socionics does neither of these. Firstly, there are multiple bases - model A, model G, Reinin, etc. Secondly, the means of typing is not settled - should we type via IR, IE, VI, high level descriptions, profiles...? Thirdly, the theory is not derived from an empirical model of facts but rather the theory itself is constructed from (inconsistent) principles, meaning that any empirical evidence in support of it would be as good as confirmation bias. Fourthly, any rigour being developed in the theory would be futile since the theory is already so detailed; hence, should we try to create a logically consistent model, we would have to break a number of the systems already put in place such as the subtype system or the descriptions of the functions, not that these are firm to begin with. Fifthly, a theory is only as useful as the people who use it. Thus, even if the model were completely logically consistent, there would still be an interpretation of the system for each person who used it, rendering the system useless for precise modelling.
Because of all this, the only use that socionics has is as a database of patterns and trends that people have observed. They are high-level enough to where general archetypes of thought categorization exist but also not so general so as to be personally useless in developing skills you are not good at. Fighting about who is what type is pointless since each person has an interpretation of the system anyway. And unless it strays so radically far from the norm, no one can say it's incorrect since the foundation is shaky nevertheless. I would like to say that there is a "correct" way of viewing the system, but I can't. What I can say, however, is that if we can all come to a consensus with our different interpretations, then we all gain something both in socionics and in personal understanding of other people. That's the only useful thing about socionics.
That's just my two cents. Feel free to disagree.