Quote Originally Posted by ajsindri View Post
I very much disagree. I think the fact there are so many approaches and models of socionics demonstrates a creative spirit that is actively questioning things and trying to make it better. For the record, I think model A works very well, but the problem is there is no objective standard and no empirical trials, which is why the socionics community seems to be fracturing into different schools of thought. We need a way to allow this creative investigation while not harming the integrity of the core of what works or the consensus of the community.
Quote Originally Posted by Rebelondeck View Post
Unfortunately, all the creative spirits seem to have produced classification models from very similar perspectives that won't produce plausible information-processing structures; and the proponents of each model searches for proof that their database is superior. The first ingredient in a rabbit stew is a rabbit, and Socionics doesn't have a valid model; it only has data showing that one must exist. I think Socionics has to push the observers aside and hire a control-system specialist such as one with an AI background......

a.k.a. I/O
It seems that some people tend to think that as long as there's some sort of an "objective standard" that could be imposed upon, then everything would no longer be fragmented and everything would magically work. It's like waiting for a fabled x-ray machine that could finally somehow scan peoples' brain to objectively know what type they are.

But they're forgetting that you actually need to come up with the explanation for what makes something a type, and how in the first place.