You don't need an alternative theory to be able to check whether the hypothesis based on the theory is true or false.
There are no psychological theories that deal in depth with the compatibility of how different people interact with each other. There are observations in Western psychology on there being patterns but I have not seen anyone investigate it in depth like Socionists have.Even if the tests proves Socionics wrong in some ways, I doubt that most people would start abandoning Socionics en masse. That's because they could either blame the test as being flawed, or say that the basic premise of Socionics is correct, but it needs more research.
The fact is that there already are some alternatives theories in scientific psychology, which most people are either aren't aware of, or they deliberately ignore them. Or they would incorporate those theories into Socionics and start making ad-hoc modifications, and see no conflict or contradictions between them.
That's exactly what I was telling you about science.The reason why it's so easy to make ad-hoc modifications in Socionics, is because it has no systematic and theoretical skeletal framework. It has no mechanistic explanations as such. The more rigorous and scientific the theory is, the harder it is to make arbitrary ad-hoc modifications without ruining the entire thing. That's because each of the explanations have their own functions and have internal consistency with the other explanations, just as each of the components in a mechanical clock have their own use, and if you change 1 thing then it ruins the entire thing.
BTW Socionics's model does have a systematic framework that can be operationalised and be testable even in its current form for the ITR. The problem is the model as it is now is only capable to deal with a few things in a truly systematic way while it just claims to do so for the rest and it's too easy for people to go beyond that into the apophenic thinking - that's bad.
I can't believe I'm actually hearing the last sentence from you of all people.If it's so easy to modify a theory, then it's a bad theory, i.e. a bad explanation. A good theory or an explanation is hard-to-vary. You can't make arbitrary changes to how reality actually is.