Anyone want to help make socionics scientific?

[sbbds]

@ajsindri You wouldn’t necessarily need to test for tons and tons of factors. Even a couple interesting ones that are unique observations to Socionics would help Socionics generate momentum, as it would put its name out there and connect it to some empirical basis.

Anyway, I think you’re EII. You do you though.

[Lao Tzunami]

@Nebula I totally get what you're saying and I still plan on replying to an earlier comment. It was just complex so I'm trying to do it justice.

@ajsindri You wouldn’t necessarily need to test for tons and tons of factors. Even a couple interesting ones that are unique observations to Socionics would help Socionics generate momentum, as it would put its name out there and connect it to some empirical basis.

How do we decide which few traits are worth investing decades of research into? If there is a consensus, it would be the Model A analytics: 8 functions * 8 information elements = 64 basic categories, each with multiple aspect. That is a monster of a factor analysis. Also, there is no consensus what the definitions are exactly or even that is the best way to test the theory.

Anyway, I think you’re EII. You do you though.

>:| this must be why you people are always complaining about socionics, because you think you know someone well enough after an internet conversation to type them, and then when your stereotypical thinking cause problems, you blame the theory. No, just because I don't agree with you and think socionics can be improve with science does not make me EII.