Quote Originally Posted by ajsindri View Post
What I'm saying is inspired by Christopher Langan's Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU). The CTMU talks a lot about how language is generated from a field of potential, a utility parameter, and a loop of cybernetic feedback. We have a field of potential from all the different socionic schools of thought. I am trying to develop a utility function that can measure how well an application matches the theoretical structure when applied. The structure is a self imposed constraint from socionics, but without it, the model would totally collapse, effectively proving Model A wrong. This creates a pass fail criteria for the application of socionics, fulfilling the criteria of falsifiability, which like it or not, is how we do things in the west. I didn't make the rules, I'm just trying to win the game.

I'm expecting that if we try to make reliable standard way of applying model A, it won't work well at first, and we'll have to refine our method through trial and error. The key question is if it works well enough to start the refining process, and if the best version passes a standard, like less than 5% mistype error. We won't know any of this until we actually do it.
There are already criteria and such requirements for falsifiability and error in the fields of research in question. Not being an institutional leader yourself, I don’t see how you expect to inject your own.