Originally Posted by
ooo
there are many valid points here, we can't stick to theory as if the Bible, and we really need to develop our own understanding of how socionics rules and exceptions work, by studying the various theories out there and applying them to our own world; probably this will mean that, in the end, two people will have different definitions for the very same functions, and supposing that they're prepared, both definitions could be right because they'll be built around what terms and particularities fit better to the understanding of the people using them... this is "natural", it applies everywhere, and it's even one of the main focus of the original Jungian typing work, there's no ultimate "right approach", just approaches that fit better to how I see the world...
now my problem, being the cranky ass I am around here, is that if someone starts to sell me that "Ne is idiotioc" (because I'm Ni), "Ni looks dumb" (because I'm Ni polr), "T types don't smile" (because paralysis), "F can't think" (only I can do that!), well, then I prefer reading Jung and Augusta, with all of their bad outdated stereotypes, because at least they weren't supporting such nonsense.. and because the system we're using revolves around ideas that they themselves have outlined, so, obviously, they knew a bit better.
Aramas I enjoyed reading your analysis but unfortunately I can't agree with a lot of the points you make, in terms of drug consumption, in terms of Se types being the most scattered, in terms of the two dyads completely excluding each other's feedback etc,,,
my idea is that we're more well rounded beings than what socionics suggest, we're not just attracted to matching types, and we can have stronger DS or Polr than what is suggested by dimensionality or official theory, ok, but despite all of these considerations, when it comes to typing someone we can't rely on some silly personal stereotypes, they just do more bad than good.