It is not that socionics can't describe some aspects of a person's psyche. It is just if there are really only 16 types, it should be observable and collaboratively agreed upon what constitutes a type. What we actually observe is exactly what one would expect if dimensions are on a sliding scale as opposed to dichotomies. You really don't need cognitive functions to explain a person, only a list of where they measure on the scales. But a further problem is subjectivity. People see types differently than others, without a consensus. If types were the "higher reality", it should be apparent who was what type. There should be significantly measureable differences that require the existence of the types to explain them. But, all people seem interested in here is trying to squeeze a size 11 foot into a size 10 shoe, while saying one can only be a 10 or 12 because the manufacturers only made those sizes and insists no size 11 exists!